were saying that the second, less concise method was what the code should
be changed TO, instead of changed FROM.
Deduct 10 points from my reading comprehension score, please.
I do agree with both you and Ray that the "fall through" method is better.
For what (little) that's worth.
-Patti
> I know they both work, but repeated code that forms no function is a
> waste
>
> The original code was more like
> <cfcase value="11">
> <cfset num = two>
> </cfcase>
> <cfcase value="12">
> <cfset num = two>
> </cfcase>
> <cfcase value="13">
> <cfset num = two>
> </cfcase>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia G. L. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:47 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Date
>
>
> Nope, they both work. It's analogous to:
>
> <cfcase value="11,12,13">
> <cfset num = two>
> </cfcase>
>
> Reduces redundant code. Easier to read.
>
> -Patti
>
>> Just out of curiosity, shouldn't the script at the top be
>>
>> switch(two) {
>> case "11":
>> case "12":
>> case "13": { num = two; break; }
>> default: { num = Right(num,1); break; }
>> }
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> switch(two) {
>> case "11": { num = two; break; }
>> case "12": { num = two; break; }
>> case "13": { num = two; break; }
>> default: { num = Right(num,1); break; }
>> }
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:08 AM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: Date
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure there is a UDF for this at cflib.org. Yep,
>> http://www.cflib.org/udf.cfm?ID=349
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>>
>>
> _____
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
