From: Michael M. F. <mf...@ph...> - 2006-10-29 02:29:14
|
In article <454...@ie...>, Travis Oliphant <oli...@ie...> wrote: > Hmm.... I know that the code was changed at some point a few months ago > specifically to this behavior because of some concerns Perry, Chris > (people at STScI) had. Originally, field names came first, but we > changed it so they could set known attributes of a record array even if > they were also field names. > > This may be an unintentional side-effect. So, let's not just change > things again and create problems for them. Were any test cases generated for this? Changing the code did not break anything: if this is important, a test should probably be added. Michael. |