RE: [CFCDev] Null values (was CFC wish-list)

[Hal Helms]

Jared,   The problem is that I *want* to specify the type I expect to return. It’s only in those cases where I can’t return it that I need a null value that will fulfill the contract for any reference type (class or interface). So specifying “null” would be no better than specifying “any”.   See how that works?   Hal   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:46 PM To: CFCDev@cfczone.org Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Null values (was CFC wish-list)   Barney... I get your point, but I wonder... and prepare yourself for YACFOOWA (yet another cf-oo work-around). Why note just have a CFC called... null.cfc. If you need a standard, consistent value to test against perhaps expecting the language to provide it by default isn't always the answer. If you had a null.cfc, you could actually USE type="null" or returntype="null" in your CFC code. I'm not sure I understand the need for making CF into something that it isn't, wasn't, and really probably never will be. I can see adding interfaces being as easy as adding an implements="" attribute to a CFC... but adding types to a loosely typed language strikes me as an odd fix to a non-problem. Maybe I'm missing something... if so, please point it out. I just see many of these things that people are calling "deficits" as part-and-parcel to the strength and core values of the language: flexibility and a focus on runtime over compiletime. Just my two cents since we're on the topic. Laterz! J On 5/12/05, Barney Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In many instances, allowing functions to return null values just shifts the > problem or, at least, the responsibility. This is why we so many null > pointer exceptions from Java and C#. They are proper OO languages returning > null values that the consumer is unprepared to handle. I HAVE to respond this statement.  Having or not having null doesn't affect this issue at all.  If i have null, I return it.  If I don't have null, I return "something" (like the empty string).  In either case, the calling code needs to be able to handle both scenarios. Having null makes this easier, because you have a specific value to test against, and more importantly, it's a value that cannot be confused with any other value. -- --------------- ------------------------------------- Buy SQLSurveyor! http://www.web-relevant.com/sqlsurveyor Never make your developers open Enterprise Manager again. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to cfcdev@cfczone.org with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to cfcdev@cfczone.org with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org