i believe that this came up in a previous thread. as a reprise, the "D" denotes "decimal notation", and as such, is equal to 55 (in which the decimal (as opposed to hex/octal) notation) is the default.
-----Original Message----- From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 1:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Variable names in CFMX Hi folks, this is little bit offtopic but it's very weird: <CFSET var1="55"> <CFSET var2="55D"> <CFIF var1 EQ var2>Equal!<CFELSE>Different</CFIF> The CFMX outputs "Equal"... Does anybody have a clue about what might it be? This is syntax problem when converting it to Java? I didn't see any mention to that in the CFMX docs. By the way: CFMX still "typeless"? And what about when the CFMX code is converted to Java code? How the JIT decides which data type a variable has? Abra�os! Alex > ---------- Mensagem original ----------- > > De : "Jim McAtee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para : CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc : > Data : Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:25:48 -0600 > Assunto : Re: Variable names in CFMX > > Funny you should mention that. About a month ago I was trying to de vise a > naming convention for CF variables used as constants in a particular > application. I don't bother using variable prefixes in my applicati ons, but > was hoping to use a leading underscore to denote a "constant". Of c ourse, > in CF5 it was invalid. > > Jim > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 9:08 PM > Subject: Re: Variable names in CFMX > > > > I agree that there's no meaning for them and it'll be even more co nfusing > to people coming from other languages such as perl. Personally, I'm never > going to use them. > > Even in another arcane naming convention. <g> > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 24, 2002, at 07:22 , Michael Dinowitz wrote: > > > > <CFSET _new=1> > > > > <CFSET $new=2> > > > > <CFOUTPUT>#_new# #$new#</CFOUTPUT> > > > > > > Maybe it's in preparation for the VAX port? ;) > > > > > > I can think of no value whatsoever for allowing either of these. They do > > > not contribute to readability and there's every chance that some bright > > > spark will come along and 'invent' some cryptic meaning for them in yet > > > another arcane naming convention :( > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
