> > You're right, it was discussed, but ipairs was kept undeprecated. There > seems to be a discussion going on as: `ipairs is slow compared to a > numeric "for"' vs. `so many people are used to it'.
and slow is relative. It seems that ipairs is about half the speed of a for loop but still so incredibly fast, that I doubt that anyone can notice the difference for 99% of the documents we produce. http://trac.caspring.org/wiki/LuaPerformance#TEST9:for-loops Patrick
