You wouldn't change CF tag syntax. And, as already has been said, there is no reason why you would need to REMOVE the existing operators from <cfscript> - just make sure that you CAN write ECMA compliant code in <cfscript>.
While I can see it may be a big ask from MM to get them to spend money on something they dont see as being profitable, I dont think it is unreasonable from a community point of view that would like their code to adhere to widely used standards. The next Crusade though would be to make the tag based syntax of CFMX fully XML compliant - but I don't see that happening too soon either. Regards, Gary On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:39:57 +1100, Pat Branley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i dunno if you can use mathematics as a basis for your argument. > consider this > > x = x + 1 > > mathematically it makes absolutely no sense since there is an inequality > problem. what you are really saying *mathematically* is: > > x' = x + 1 > > Ive seen a few Computer Science text books that dont like the x = x + 1 > syntax and write it as x <- x + 1 > > I learned programming first in Basic & then java at uni. when i first > came to work with CF i found the whole GTE thing really annoying, but > now i acutally find it quite good. > > If cfscript was made ECMA compliant, how would the tag-based operators > work ? > > <cfif x > y > > > </cfif> > > ?? im sure that isnt valid xml. > > Pat > > > > Adam Cameron wrote: > >>folks > >>coming from stuff like Algol 60, ADL, ABAP, BLISS or any number of > > > > > > Congrats, Sean. You can rattle off a list of moderately-obscure to > > very-obscure programming languages. And it's a mighty fine strawman. > > > > Are you seriously expecting us to believe people who might be coding in > > those languages either never did maths at school, or have never used other > > languages which use the standard operators? > > > > > > > >>http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/ > > > > > > Interesting reading. > > > > > >>>It's not snobbery mate. What did you learn in grade school... ">=" or > >>>"GTE"? What the *hell* does "GTE" mean to anyone other than CF developers? > >> > >>See above. Lots of people learned languages that use GTE or something > >>very similar. > > > > > > Per head of people coding in the world today... which is going to be more > > familiar to people: <= or "LTE"? > > > > How many people who cut their teeth on Algol 60, ADL, ABAP, BLISS (etc) are > > going to be diving into the CF arena any time soon? > > > > I think your argument kinda works more in my favour than yours, to be > > honest. > > > > --- > 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/
