Why doesn't your code work? Seems perfectly acceptable to me assuming you have already declared score outside of the function.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:58 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFC theory > > Another problem with the unnamed scope is that you can't have this: > > <cfset score = arguments.score> > > That puts a needless restriction that instance variables be named > differently from arguments and reduces the readability of code, IMHO. > > Hal Helms > Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at > www.techspedition.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:48 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFC theory > > > I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this" > scope and making this public. It removes virtually all of the benefits > of having it. This could easily have been overcome by allowing us to set > access attributes such as private. But using an "unnamed scope" seems to > me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented. > Having a <cfproperty> tag with an access attribute (or some such > mechanism) would make perfect sense. > > The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint a > product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to > expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have overloadable > methods, overloadable constructors, etc. > > Hal Helms > Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at > www.techspedition.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:24 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFC theory > > > > 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 > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
