I doubt anyone outside of Macromedia can answer that. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:41 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > Would the below be an easy change in CFMX? > > <cfset int foobar = 1> > or > <cfscript> > int foobar = 1; > </cfscript> > > Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Integer instead of the following. > > <cfset foobar = 1> > or > <cfscript> > foobar = 1; > </cfscript> > > Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Variable. > > Joe > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:12 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > > > > > Well CF could use the same technique that VB did. VB optionally allows > > variables to be declared as a type. If no type is declared then the > > variable is considered of type variant. For example, the following could > > work with CF. > > > > <cfset int foobar = 1> > > or > > <cfscript> > > int foobar = 1; > > </cfscript> > > > > Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Integer instead of the following. > > > > <cfset foobar = 1> > > or > > <cfscript> > > foobar = 1; > > </cfscript> > > > > Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Variable. > > > > Matt Liotta > > President & CEO > > Montara Software, Inc. > > http://www.montarasoftware.com/ > > 888-408-0900 x901 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:56 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote: > > > > Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type > > > > (optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code, > > > > > > That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :) > > > > > > Yes, it's certainly one possible approach, allowing the user to > > declare > > > variables with a type (and extending the CF types to include "integer" > > > would also be a useful enhancement, instead of just "numeric" and > > "binary" > > > ). > > > > > > I actually prefer the code analysis approach since it allows CFMX's > > > compiler to evolve without requiring users to change their code and > > could > > > substantially speed up certain constructs in legacy code. > > > > > > "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/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
