Oh no! CF does not do type checking as there are no types. CF does provide a built-in way to validate data that though. These two things are not the same.
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 1:57 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFC theory > > But CF does type checking for return types and argument types. It allows > polymorphism by checking the type, so why can't we expect it to know > enough to sort out the type of the argument passed to it? > > Hal Helms > Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at > www.techspedition.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:32 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: CFC theory > > > On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 12:48 , Hal Helms wrote: > > I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this" > > scope and making this public. > > Why? "this" scope in Java is for public data members (as well as private > > data members). "this" scope in C++ is for public data members (as well > as > private data members). > > > But using an "unnamed scope" seems to > > me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented. > > Elsewhere in CF 'variables' and the unnamed scope are synonymous. We > have > already acknowledged a bug that 'variables' does not behave correctly > inside components. That bug will be fixed. > > > 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. > > Since "this" is *not* a private scope specifically in any OO language I > can think of, I think your expectations are wrong - based on lack of > knowledge of other OO languages perhaps? > > As myself and Matt have pointed out, overloading belongs in strongly > typed > languages, not typeless ones. > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
