I may be missing the point, but it was a bad example. I think that's the same point that Sean is trying to bring up. I'll step away from this with the statement of: "CFINCLUDES, use them wisely." The example you gave, didn't seem very wise to me. It was very obscure and "bad coding" imho.
Adam Cameron wrote:
I call that bad coding?I think you're - and I suspect purposely - missing the point.No reason for cfincludes to be that way,Bad coding or otherwise (and we will have to disagree, here), it's syntactically valid, and it is counter to how others are claiming <cfcinclude> ought to work.if your sql statement is that large with conditionals and such, itshould be a storedproc. There's a number of reasons why this suggestion is not sensible or relevant. Adam
