I mentioned this a long time ago – for regexes, although it doesn't matter – and was explained to ad nauseam why it happened. It wasn't the why I was interested in, but rather, like you, whether this was a good thing. /methinksnot, but I had the impression back then to be a bit alone...
-- dda libcurl4RB, [S]FTP transfers made easy http://sungnyemun.org/?q=node/8 RBDeveloper Columnist, "Beyond the Limits" http://rbdeveloper.com On 3/11/06, Thomas Tempelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just found something I did not expect to work like this: > > dim d1, d2 as new Date > > I did expect that this would create TWO new Date instances, one for > d1, and one for d2. > > Instead, there's only one instance which gets assigned to both d1 and d2. > > You do not need to explain to me why it happens like this - I ask the > others of you if you agree that this is a GOOD result that you all > want. > > Because I'd rather ask that the compiler gives an error to avoid this > rather ambiguous effect: I say that if someone wants to have d1 and d2 > assigned the same value here, he should rather write this explicitly > to avoid this possible confusion
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
