So you tellin me that bike in my garage isn't really an SUV with only two wheels, a non gasoline powered engine and zero cargo space?
Ken -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:41 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? The problem is that by definition a constructor is a method. Thus, anything that is not a method cannot be considered a constructor. Using your logic we could have anything be anything as long as it was caveated with a description as to how it was different. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: James Sleeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:11 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Component Calls: What would you do? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 1:59 PM > Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? > > You said it yourself... > > > If the language supports > > overloading than the constructors can be overloaded, if the language > > doesn't then the constructors can't be overloaded. > > So - CF doesn't support overloading, that doesn't mean that what you call > the component body isn't a default constructor. Infact, it just means > that > Macromedia was sensible - they decided that there was no need for a > special > constructor method for CFC's because each CFC may only have a default > constructor (and by definition, a default constructor cannot have > arguments). > > Lets say, for example, that MM took what you call the "component body" and > turned that into a method that every CFC must have, that takes no > arguments, > would you be happy to call that a constructor. I think so. So what > difference does it make if that method is given a name, as a specific > method, or just remains nameless as the "component body", it still does > the > same thing, at the same time, is compulsory and takes no arguments. > > I think if you said to any Java or C++ programmer, "see this bit of code, > that is what CFC's use as thier one and only constructor", they will > instantly recognize that this happens when the object is "constructed", > that > it's a "default constructor" and that because CF doesn't support > overloading, that it's the "only constructor". > > And likewise I think if you said to any CFC programmer, "see this Java > function, this is what Java classes use as thier default constructor, but > because you can overload in Java you may specify more non-default > constructors that can take arguments", it would be quite plain that this > function happens when the object is "constructed", that it's a "default > constructor" and that because Java supports overloading, it's not the > "only > constructor". > > The concept is the same - a bit of code, that gets executed when the > object > is created, that can be used to initialize everything that object needs, > be > it written in Java, C++, Python, Smalltalk or ColdFusion. > > --- > James Sleeman > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/9/2002 > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
