Nobody seems to be explaining the difference between an array and an object.

[] is declaring an array.

{} is declaring an object.

An array has all the features of an object with additional features (you can think of an array like a sub-class of an object) where additional methods and capabilities are added in the Array sub-class. In fact, typeof [] === "object" to further show you that an array is an object.

The additional features consist of a magic .length property that keeps track of the number of items in the array and a whole slew of methods for operating on the array such as .push(), .pop(), .slice(), .splice(), etc... You can see a list of array methods here.

An object gives you the ability to associate a property name with a value as in:

var x = {};
x.foo = 3;
x["whatever"] = 10;
console.log(x.foo);      // shows 3
console.log(x.whatever); // shows 10

Object properties can be accessed either via the x.foo syntax or via the array-like syntax x["foo"]. The advantage of the latter syntax is that you can use a variable as the property name like x[myvar] and using the latter syntax, you can use property names that contain characters that Javascript won't allow in the x.foo syntax.

A property name can be any string value.

An array is an object so it has all the same capabilities of an object plus a bunch of additional features for managing an ordered, sequential list of numbered indexes starting from 0 and going up to some length. Arrays are typically used for an ordered list of items that are accessed by numerical index. And, because the array is ordered, there are lots of useful features to manage the order of the list .sort() or to add or remove things from the list.

The very last line might be causing the problem, have you tried replacing myArray[myArray.length] = obj; with myArray.push(obj);? Could be that, since you're creating a new index explicitly, the Array is turned into an object... though I'm just guessing here. Could you add the code used by the child document that retrieves myArray ?

Edit

Ignore the above, since it won't make any difference. Though, without wanting to boast, I was thinking along the right lines. My idea was that, by only using proprietary array methods, the interpreter would see that as clues as to the type of myArray. The thing is: myArray is an array, as far as the parent document is concerned, but since you're passing the Array from one document to another, here's what happens:

An array is an object, complete with it's own prototype and methods. By passing it to another document, you're passing the entire Array object (value and prototype) as one object to the child document. In passing the variable between documents, you're effectively creating a copy of the variable (the only time JavaScript copies the values of a var). Since an array is an object, all of its properties (and prototype methods/properties) are copied to a 'nameless' instance of the Object object. Something along the lines of var copy = new Object(toCopy.constructor(toCopy.valueOf())); is happening... the easiest way around this, IMO, is to stringency the array withing the parent context, because there, the interpreter knows it's an array:

//parent document
function getTheArray(){ return JSON.stringify(myArray);}
//child document:
myArray = JSON.parse(parent.getTheArray());

In this example, the var is stringified in the context that still treats myArray as a true JavaScript array, so the resulting string will be what you'd expect. In passing the JSON encoded string from one document to another, it will remain unchanged and therefore the JSON.parse() will give you an exact copy of the myArray variable.

Note that this is just another wild stab in the dark, but I have given it a bit more thought, now. If I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me... I'm always happy to learn. If this turns out to be true, let me know, too, as this will undoubtedly prove a pitfall for me sooner or later