While it doesn't fit with older semantics of CFML, it does remind me of the behavior in some other OO languages. For example, in C++, the "static" keyword has slightly different meanings depending on if you use it in a class, at the top of a file, in a function definition, etc. Could the CFMX designers have intended something similar for CFinclude inside a CFC versus CFinclude elsewhere?The designers could have intended any number of things, but what is important is what the CFML community thinks of the result. I say it is wrong and should be changed. I suggest others who feel the same way should complain as well. They can choose to listen to our complaints just like we can choose to not buy their product. When you have a language as mature as CFML as well as a product as mature as CF 5, you can't just go changing fundamental parts of the language without consequences.
-Matt
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
