I could have sworn you just indicated that you didn't want to see logic in the pseudo-constructor area. Wouldn't logic be best suited for a constructor even if it didn't take arguments? I say yes.
I said simple variable initialization is fine. My experience is that logic mostly appears in non-default constructors.
That is not my experience.
Our experiences differ. I can only speak to my experience in C++ (since early '92) and in Java (since around '96/'97) - and a smattering of Smalltalk - and that is that non-default constructors are usually where the complex logic is and also that non-default constructors are more common than default constructors. We'll probably just have to agree to differ on this one...
That didn't stop Macromedia from making other common identifiers reserved words.
Maybe. And I'm not saying I agree with all those decisions.
Further, there is nothing wrong with a new keyword that requires a full specified name. And, it would fit fine with CFML.
I don't believe there is a precedent for such a thing in CFML. CFML uses strings to specify paths - all bare identifiers are evaluated (and are therefore not types, by definition). I think it would very strange syntactically in the context of CFML to add an expression like:
new fully.qualified.identifier
I could, however, see an argument for:
new("fully.qualified.identifier")
Regards, Sean
----------------------------------------------------------
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]
