https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62982
--- Comment #8 from Mr. Stradivarius <stradb...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jackmcbarn from comment #7) > That doesn't make it expected. For nil, expected behavior is a no-op, just > like ordinarily appending a nil element to a table is. Agreed - not silently accepting nil feels unexpected, mostly because it kills call-chaining. (Personally I would also like false values to be silently ignored, as it makes it easier to use the "and" and "or" operators when call-chaining, but I can understand if others feel this is too permissive.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
