At 12:50 PM 9/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > 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. > > >I disagree with adding overloadable methods as CF is a typless language >and really should have no use for them.
I would argue that CF is not typeless, but loosely typed. Arrays (And until CFMX structures) require a declaration before use. Simple values can easily be used as though they were typeless. -- Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Need a Web Developer? Contact me! AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 -- My CFMX Book: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072225564/instantcoldfu-20> My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com ______________________________________________________________________ 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/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
