What he said.
I totally didn't think about how CFMX would react
to it either. Same consequences for both CFM & DOM..
Its like Ghost Busters, when Egon said "Don't Cross
the streams" and Venkman asked "Why".. and Egon said "It would be bad.."
Ok, Egons us, giving the evil bone fingered warning
saying "baaaaad....." and those who still wonder are like Venkman "I'm fuzzy on
the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean "bad"?"
To which we reply: "Try to imagine all life as you
know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at
the speed of light."
So... That's bad. Okay. Alright, important safety
tip.
Same thing with this instance, it can be done but
unless a 200ft Stay-Puft marshmallow man is in your rode, i'd steer clear of dot
notations on variable names.
Scott
CodeMonkey For Hire.
(Sorry, I'm in a goofy mood)
"Gary Menzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The syntax of FORM["blah.blah.blah"] would create something
> hierarchically that lookslike this......
>
> FORM
> blah.blah.blah
>
> I think someone said that in previous versions of CF it would
> literally create the hierarchy - as in......
>
> FORM
> blah
> blah
> blah
>
> When you start using "blah.blah.blah" the biggest confusion you can
> get into is that in CFMX 6.1 it WONT create the hierarchy (it is just
> a literal key).
>
> In the case of the FORM scope (being created as the result of a FORM
> submission) you are not likely to ever create a hierarchy of
> structures. But in something like Session or Application scope you
> would/could.
>
> Does that make sense ?
>
> Regards,
> Gary
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:19:13 +1000, Taco Fleur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >From a CFMX perspective, I would warn off it - only because the DOT
> > > notation is used in STRUCTs to create the hierachy.
> >
> > Well I am a bit hesitant about it, but I need to define the object path and
> > property in a field name, I could do
> > inpPerson_Employee_positionTitle, but then I'd have to do a replace on the _
> > and I like seeing it with the dots ;-)
> >
> > Reason for doing this is because I have a cfc that looks at what objects are
> > used and retrieves the appropriate xml to validate the data, i.e.
> > inpPerson.Employee.positionTitle will become this.meta[ Person.Employee ]
> > and the attribute name is "positionTitle"
> >
> > Now, if I can't use the dot notation I can still do this, but then it just
> > became a bit messier...
> > So are we sure this going to cause problems? ;-))
> >
> > Gary, I could not visualize the issues you were pointing out, can you show
> > me a sample?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > 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/
