ok So if you have to call
super.foo(arg1, arg2, arg3) whats the difference if you call super.foo(arguments) your still passing in the arguments, just as the structure only thing in your cfc is that you will have to call it as arguments[1].whatEver that or <cfset arguments = Duplicate(Arguments[1])> maybe? Steve -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Adam Cameron Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:53 AM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: super.method() > I've never had an issue with it because I have never run into the bug myself :) Which is fair enough. > I'm not getting dragged into an argument about whether super.init( > argumentCollection = arguments ) is better than super.init( name = > value, name = value, name = value ), But that's the point... well it's *not* the point in this case. NEITHER of those two syntaxes work. Youca nnot name any arguments that you pass into a parent class' method, if using the super keyword. The ONLY way to do it is ordered values: super.foo(arg1, arg2, arg3) This works well in situations where all the arguments are known ahead of time, and are passed in in a prescribed order. We've a number of situations where this is absolutely not possible, which means that CF's weird implementation of CFC inheritance is useless to us. And accordingly... needs to be fixed. Adam --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
