@Dale: It throws.
@Haikal: Good Point. It's that laziness again - setting up and maintaining
defaults can be rather tiresome.

On 05/06/07, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I favour sane defaults rather than having to check for
> presence of variables all the time. And the bigger and more complicated
> your data structs get, I think having to check to see if a variable
> exists is a quick path to insanity.
>
> Side effect of eating too much spaghetti...
>
> grant wrote:
> > Wow thanks for the response people. My question is really out of pure
> > laziness - I have a huge struct that i need to check a key for - the
> > actual key path is
> > session.currentuser.currentreport.filters.currentfilter.filterset ,
> > where filters, currentfilter and filterset may not be present. so it's
> > heaps easier to do a
> > isDefined("
> session.currentuser.currentreport.filters.currentfilter.filterset")
> > than structKeyExists(session.currentuser.currentreport , "filters")
> > and structKeyExists(session.currentuser.currentreport.filters,
> > "currentfilter") and so on.
> >
> > or am i missing something?
> >
> > On 05/06/07, * Haikal Saadh* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     Having seen more than my fair share of request scope abuse, I can
> see
> >     why he would.
> >
> >     I think easy access to request in CF can cause poor code. But then
> >     again, guns don't kill people,  people kill people, right?
> >
> >     Peter Tilbrook wrote:
> >     > I agree (disciplined) but he then bagged the "request" scope so
> >     now I
> >     > am not so sure.
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >     >
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to