Not always the case, because of it's dynamic evaluation capabilities.  And
those same dynamic evaluation capabilities make it a pain to work with in a
lot of situations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Which is quicker
>
> I don't know why people don't like iif (immediate if), it is
> as quick as
> cfif and takes only one line. For simple things, like "if x <
> y print true
> else print false", I think using iif makes code shorter
> without sacrificing
> clarity and speed.
>
> If you don't believe iif is fast then I encourage you to
> write a small test
> and see for yourself.
>
> TK
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Matthew Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:34 PM
>   To: CF-Talk
>   Subject: RE: Which is quicker
>
>
>   cfswitch is both quicker and more elegant. The only
> downside is that it
>   doesn't handle dynamic values.
>
>   Iii() is one of those functions, like evaluate(), usage of which is
>   generally discouraged.
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Parker, Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2004 10:30 a.m.
>   To: CF-Talk
>   Subject: Which is quicker
>
>   Can I get a little advice on which is quicker or which is
> the preferred
> way
>   of programming - there are 8 items to select from:
>
>   CFIF, CFCASE or IIF
>
>   TIA!
>
>   +++++++++++++++++++
>   Kevin Parker
>   Web Services Manager
>   WorkCover Corporation
>
>   p: 08 8233 2548
>   e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   w: www.workcover.com
>   +++++++++++++++++++
>
>   
> **************************************************************
> **********
>   This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only. It may
>   contain information that is protected by legislated confidentiality
>   and/or is legally privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient you
>   are prohibited from disseminating, distributing or copying
> this e-mail.
>
>   Any opinion expressed in this e-mail may not necessarily be
> that of the
>   WorkCover Corporation of South Australia. Although precautions have
>   been taken, the sender cannot warrant that this e-mail or any files
>   transmitted with it are free of viruses or any other defect.
>
>   If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
>   immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original e-mail and any
>   copies.
>   
> **************************************************************
> **********
>
>     _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to