On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:30:34 +1100, Tom <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote:


[snip]

>> See the docs Derek posted in his last reply, 'in' does not promise to
>> protect the data to which the array reference refers, only the array
>> reference itself.
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand Derek copied that from docs -in fact I can't find
> that in the docs [please guide me with a link if you do]-, but rather I think
> that is his own version of what he think the docs should state (or what has to
> be added to the docs).

Yes, they were my own words. You won't find them in the offical docs and that's the point I was trying to make.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:29:18 +1100, Derek Parnell <derek@psych.ward> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:30:34 +1100, Tom <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>> See the docs Derek posted in his last reply, 'in' does not promise to
>>> protect the data to which the array reference refers, only the array
>>> reference itself.
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't understand Derek copied that from docs -in fact I can't find
>> that in the docs [please guide me with a link if you do]-, but rather I think
>> that is his own version of what he think the docs should state (or what has to
>> be added to the docs).
>
> Yes, they were my own words. You won't find them in the offical docs and that's the point I was trying to make.

My mistake. They were good words lets put them in the docs.

Regan