I think the problem is that CF is "moderately" typed, something we're not used to. Otherwise, what would such functions such as isNumeric(), is Array(), isStruct() as well as the "type" attribute in <cfargument>, in <cfproperty>, and the "returntype" attribute in <cfcomponent> mean?
Hal Helms Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at www.techspedition.com -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:59 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFC theory 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 > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm 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
