On 10/22/2014 03:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> We haven't changed anything yet, but I strongly believe we need to do away 
> with field ordering.  The good news is that if you explicitly search for the 
> field instead of relying on a fixed order the code should be more robust and 
> work either way. ;)
I have no doubt my old code looks like Steve's first example, not the
second.
But as I said, code can be changed if the assumptions about ordering are
thrown out.

You're making a pretty big splash over here Paul! Very impressive...
:-)

LCB

-- 
LC (Lenny) Bruzenak
lenny@magitekltd.com