On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Lars Torben Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree--and I know my tone to Dan was a bit brusque (sorry about
> that). I just feel that we can't call the two examples "completely
> equivalent" when one starts with a fresh array and the other only
> starts with a fresh array if the array hasn't been defined yet (I
> guess you know that though).
Don't apologize about the tone. I should've commented on the bug
when I marked it as a WFX closure, so it's my fault for being vague
and mysterious. The ladies love it, but computer geeks don't. Go
figure. ;-P
> I haven't committed my changes since I don't want to just go charging
> around changing things when Dan seemed like he had a reason not to
> change it--which he well may. I'll commit when I get home in a few
> hours if I hear nothing before then.
For the exact reason to which Hannes alluded, I had closed the
bug. However, you're both right that - even though we don't want to
encourage bad coding practices - things like that should still
probably be documented. For posterity if no other reason.
So I'll reopen it and assign it to you in just a moment. And
thanks for being diligent and following up on it, Lars.
P.S. - I still haven't found any ladies who like the whole
mysterious thing, but it doesn't matter now that I'm married anyway.
Nothing is a mystery anymore. ;-P
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
http://www.parasane.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ask me about our current hosting/dedicated server deals!
