> Let's see: CFCs have given us a "this" scope which is *public*; instance > variables can't be made private except by the kludge of using an unnamed > scope. We have CFCs presented as OO, but which has no concept of super. > We have no overloading of methods in CFCs. > I don't really think making variables private within CFCs is a kludge. I do however feel the implementation of CFCs is generally poor. IMHO, the cfproperty tag should declare variables for a CFC and should include an attribute for public or private access. Further, any variables declared with cfset should be private within the context of where they were declared. This would enable function scoped variables automatically without having to use the stupid var keyword.
I do wish CFCs were more Java like, but I wouldn't be so quick to say they aren't OO. > Were I given to irony, I might say that "I am not anti-CFC per se, but > it does tend to live in its own little bubble and it takes words, > concepts and phrases from the much larger world of OO and misuses them > in a way that causes confusion." > I think a perfect example is ColdFusion Component, which is nothing more than a class. -Matt ______________________________________________________________________ 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
