Quoting Sean A Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As Matt correctly pointed out, cfparam is runtime validation not > compile-time type checking.
Whatever (I don't claim to know anything about that). But would adding optional "int" and "double" etc. declarations next to "var" really make CFML a different language? We use strongly typed stuff all the time when working with a database (cfqueyparam), when working with overloaded Java classes (javacast()) etc. For some situations, regardless of performance issues that nobody has proven (wrong) yet, I would simply feel more comfortable if I could use strongly type variables. If I get a date from the database and I want to pass it to some Java classes or something, it would be very nice if I could strongly type it. > It turns out that there are bigger optimizations than type checking Remember I'm the "convert strings to arrays for 4000 times performance improvement guy"? I'm claiming there other, better improvements all the time. But I have not seen any conclusive arguments that support your point that adding the option of strongly typed variables would make CFML an entirely different language. It is just an extension that some people might find usefull, and other will avoid like the plague. If you say that it seems unlikely that many people will use it and it is a terrible effort to implement it in ColdFusion, fine. But if you say that it makes CFML an entirely different language I would like to know why you think so. > If you're at DevCon, chat to Edwin about this sort of stuff... :) I'm afraid I'm just a poor, unemployed student who couldn't hope to afford going there :( Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ 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
