Wow... I never new that. I'm not totally crazy in thinking that's pretty counter-intuitive then?
So basically 6.x seems to work in what I would consider the 'sensible' way... and everyone got used to it... and just to confuse matters, it was put BACK the way it was after everyone got used to it again being what I would have thought was the better way. Wanna run that logic past me again :P I'm so confused. But Thanks for pointing that out - I'll keep that in mind when I'm doing arrays for arguments on functions... Cheers, Mark On 6/1/05, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because that's how CF has always done it... I bet it was originally an > accident in JJ's C++ implementation but then code began to rely on it > and the behavior has to be preserved. Anyone got a really old copy of > CF that supports both arrays and structs to see what the assignment > behavior was? -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com ICQ: 3094740 --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
