JavaCast isn't new for CFMX as it has been around since CF 4.5. Its purpose is for helping CF determine which method to call in Java classes that have overloaded methods.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Corbridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:44 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > Try javacast, which is a new function in cfmx > > <cfscript> > x = 1; > y = javacast("int",x); > </cfscript> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:30 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
