> No - I actually don't like things being passed automatically. This I know what you mean, and all things being equal, I tend to agree.
> doesn't happen in most of the other OO languages (possibly in a few of > the interpretted ones - but not the compiled ones). You have to know That's all well and good, but CF has set a precedent of flexibility in that you can pass arguments, in any order, as name/value pairs. This flexibility doesn't occur when calling methods in the "super" object, which is unexpected behaviour. Macromedia agree with me, as it's being addressed. Now, I'd *prefer* if the typeful <cfargument> tags were used simply to identify overloaded methods (so you could have methods of the same name with a CFC, but different argument-sets), and there was no sense of REQUIRED="FALSE". But thats not the way they decided to go with CF, so so be it. It's foolish to draw parallels to how *other* languages do it, other than perhaps to identify differences in how CF does it. > what you are calling and how you are calling it. The only exception So do you have all your <cfargument> tags marked as required, and always pass all of them as an ordered list, as opposed to name/value pairs? > are calling based on parameter types - CFMX is typeless (so you can't > have method overloading). Well you *can* but only via inheritance: an extending component's methods will overload the extending component's ones. This is where the problem crops up. 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/
