I've never really thought about it, but when it called for it, I've done
what Nolan Erck mentioned. Something that just came to me though, is
throwing an exception if the type doesn't match what you're expecting.
However, really it does that anyway, for example if you use
dateformat("some string that isn't a date)... So I don't know how
helpful it'd be, other than being able to let you know "We expected a
date, not whatever you passed in."
-Sammy Larbi
Jimmy Glass wrote:
Morning,
Personally, I feel that CFSCRIPT code is much prettier than a tag based CFC.
But, my intent is not to spark a debate on the elegance of using tags. In
instances where my functions require a tag, I generally use a CFC that I've
built which contains functions that interface with the tag. CFQUERY, CFDUMP,
etc. I'm sure this is a rather common technique.
What I do like about the CFFUNCTION/CFARGUMENT tags are the ability to
explicitly define the return type and output of a function, and the data
types of the arguments. To my knowledge, this is not possible when defining
a function w/ CFSCRIPT.
Does anyone have a work around, or a way of accomplishing this in CFSCRIPT?
Thanks,
Jimmy G
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
