>I know "in" can be expensive but so is try catch. I've run each though scout >and it looks like the in operator is orders of magnitude faster and caused no >garbage collection both when the field exists and when it >doesn't. Anyone >have any insight/something to add?
Any chance data can be null at that point? Does your code handle that well? If you are good on those fronts I think it's a very positive change. I hate when try/catch is used in this way. Mike
