But it IS a broad application-development question! You can't decide *not* to scope a variable until you know *why* you would scope one to begin with. You can't decide to rely on CF's default scoping capabilities successfully until you know all the implications of them. It is a broad app-dev question because the decision to use a particular technique must be founded in good app-dev skills. There's no getting around that.
Explicit scoping _IS_always_ the best idea, unless you have a compelling rationale to break with the best practice. Laterz, J On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:48:42 -0500, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>looks like scoping AND no scoping are desirable depending on the > application. > > Exact, that's one of the advantages of using a weakly or dynimically > typed language. > Since both scoping and no scoping (or default scoping) are features of > CF, rules like "never do" or "always do" > can only make the programmer loose one of the features. -- Continuum Media Group LLC Burnsville, MN 55337 http://www.web-relevant.com http://www.web-relevant.com/blogs/cfobjective ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:200137 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
