OK. I think I see.
By the way, I just did some light debugging in Chrome with Firebug
Lite. You can poke around in the DOM, which is nice.
If anyone wants to try it, the best way to do it is with the latest
Firebug Lite (the one that actually FEELS like Firebug, based off the
old Pi debugger). Run it as a bookmarklet.
javascript:var
%20firebug=document.createElement('script');firebug.setAttribute('src','http://
getfirebug.com/releases/lite/1.2/firebug-lite-
compressed.js');document.body.appendChild(firebug);(function()
{if(window.pi&&window.firebug)
{firebug.init();}else{setTimeout(arguments.callee);}})
();void(firebug);
On Sep 2, 4:52 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From timothytoe
> > I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt
> > seemed to be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys
> > should not be relied upon.
>
> If you take out Matt's post, the context for my reply may be more clear...
>
> > > From: Guy Fraser
> > > I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc)
> > > that doesn't iterate through named references in the
> > > expected order?
> > From: Michael Geary
> > But there is no "expected order" in a for..in loop. Any
> > decent JavaScript reference book, such as Flanagan's,
> > should point this out...
