On 4/3/06, Gary Menzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. strong typing could easily be an option that could be enabled or
disabled by a setting (either through a tag or through the CF Administrator)
even in complete isolation to interfaces .
If programmers ruled the world, we wouldn't need
It should be a page-level or function-level directive.
cfsettting strongtyping=true
Roland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Patrick McElhaney
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:49 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Mixins vs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Peter Bell
The fact is that components only take you so far for reuse anyway. Even if
you use strong typing and interfaces, components don't specify how errors
are handled, they don't explicitly document
: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Peter Bell
The fact is that components only take you so far for reuse anyway. Even
if you use strong typing and interfaces, components don't specify how
errors are handled
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Peter Bell
But how do you fully describe all of the possible errors and the difference
between warnings and fatal errors (if it is a warning you might not want to
cfthrow)? Of course, you can put any
PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: SPAM-LOW: RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Peter Bell
But how do you fully describe all of the possible errors and the
difference between warnings
On 4/6/06, Roland Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be a page-level or function-level directive.
cfsettting strongtyping=true
Isn't it already a function-level directive? You can set
returntype=any on cffunction and type=any on cfargument.
Can you give me a concrete example of what
:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Peter Bell
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:05 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: SPAM-LOW: Re: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
Hi Roland,
Appreciate all the ideas, guess we're looking at this from
6:26 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
On 4/6/06, Roland Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be a page-level or function-level directive.
cfsettting strongtyping=true
Isn't it already a function-level directive? You can set
returntype=any
:36 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
Well you're really describing a perfect use for Interfaces if you're talking
about that type of reusability. Other languages do provide great constructs
for dealing with all of the problems that you describe
A friend of mine attended cf.Objective() and told me that Tom Jordahl
gave a talk saying that Adobe WILL be adding interfaces to CF8. And
no, I don't think that includes strong-typing CF. :) As Sean and
others have discussed previously on this list, the work to rewrite the
CF engine to support
Don't forget that you can avoid implementing every method in an
interface by using an adapter.
Either way, I'm happy to know that interfaces are coming.
Cliff Meyers wrote:
A friend of mine attended cf.Objective() and told me that Tom Jordahl
gave a talk saying that Adobe WILL be adding
the work to rewrite the CF engine to support strong typing or nulls
strong typing AND nulls. IMHO, the two go hand-in-hand. Don't do as
.NET 1.0/1.1 did and only do half the job (finally fixed in 2.0).
On 4/6/06, Haikal Saadh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget that you can avoid
I'm afraid this is one of those subjects that tends to bring out the
religious tendencies of developers. Some people love mixins; some love
interfaces. Personally, I think they're both great; they just have different
uses.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
of the interface
code. Of course, XML would be a little easier to parse . . .
Best Wishes,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Hal Helms
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:05 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Mixins vs
, 2006 12:05 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
I'm afraid this is one of those subjects that tends to bring out the
religious tendencies of developers. Some people love mixins; some love
interfaces. Personally, I think they're both great; they just have
, XML would be a little easier to parse . . . Best Wishes, Peter -Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hal Helms Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:05 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces I'm afraid this is one
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of Hal Helms
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:05 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Mixins vs. Interfaces
I'm afraid this is one of those subjects that tends to bring out
so we're all agreed then?
No interfaces until CF can be strongly typed (and support NULLs -
*ahem* ). Motion put forward and seconded.
if you want that sort of thing, use Mix-ins otherwise [EMAIL PROTECTED]@$-off
(ie:
look elsewhere)
glad we cleared that up. All this talk about Ducks has made
19 matches
Mail list logo
