It depends on what he means. If he means for writing UDFs in general, you may prefer the script based syntax. As for methods in a CFC, then I agree, I see no reason to ever use cfscript for the entire body.
======================================================================== === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc (www.mindseye.com) Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:18 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: UDF in CFC's - was: CFC Issues.... > > > On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 17:53 US/Pacific, Paul Spitzer wrote: > >> <cfscript> > >> function boring() { return now(); } > >> </cfscript> > > wow!.. I didn't know you could do that. > > Why would anyone want to? > > You can't set the access type, you can't specify the return type, you > can't specify any argument types. > > You can still use <cfscript> for the *body* of all your functions > (after the <cfset> tags for your 'var' scope local variables!). > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 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
