2008/11/5 Daniel P. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 myself have a hard time hitting that 'mysterious' mark. Mostly I think I just wind up confusing them. Or myself. >> 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. No problem. I had already committed so I closed out the bug report earlier today. > 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 Oh, there are still mysteries in marriage. They're not always the ones you want to have to solve, but they do come up. :) Cheers, Torben
