which is what you want. You don't want to use any very often, because it's
the same as not even specifying a type. The point of typing is to catch
errors in a structured way, rather than the "wait til it fails on first use"
approach.
The reason I don't like returning from init, is that it's elevates the init
method to a status that's greater than 'normal' methods, but less than a
real constructor, which is only confusing. And at best, it'll save you the
length of the variable name + 11 characters of typing, and cost you
readability.
Also, it's inconsistent with non-CFC objects, because their constructors
CAN'T return anything, so you have to do the two line initialization.
That's 100% personal taste, and there are many who disagree with me. I'm
not going to tell you not to do it that way (that's your decision to make),
just that I don't do it.
Cheers,
Barneyb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:41 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: extends + init() = returntype confusion
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:17:35 -0800, in cf-talk you wrote:
>
> >First, IMHO, having init() return a reference to 'this' is
> bad style. It
> >only makes things more confusing.
>
> Just when I thought I had one solid convention...
>
> So what's the preferred way to do it, and why is "return this" bad?
>
> One more thing about "return this": Why not just have the "any"
> returntype in the super class, since "this" is guaranteed(?) to return
> the current type?
>
> Thanks,
> Jamie
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
