> Given that MX broke lots of CF5 code , in some cases without > any meaningful purpose for doing so (the new Arguments class > vs. the arguments array in CF5 being case in point), I don't > see why that would be an issue for them.
How did your code break? If you were using arguments as an array (as it was in cf5), how did it not work in MX? > > Another case of CFMX's new functionality not > > being throught all the way through (or at least > > not through to the same conclusions). > > Hrm... Someone thought it through, because according to the > documentation (I'm checking the livedocs) the output > attribute is supposed to be ignored accept within a CFC. The > only attributes that aren't supposed to be ignored outside of > a CFC are name and returntype. > > http://livedocs.macromedia.com/cfmxdocs/CFML_Reference/Tags-pt > 145.jsp#285245 > 7 > > So it's either a functional bug, or it's a documentation bug, > but it is a bug. :) Agreed - but it's a doc bug only. -Ray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
