Typed collections are specifically designed to increase the effectiveness of compile-type type checks (and by consequence, let you avoid littering your code with explicit casts). Since CF is typeless (well....), there is no need for them.
cheers, barneyb On 5/14/05, Roland Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >Of Sean Corfield > > >> typable structs > > >What do you mean? > > I think he's talking about strongly-typed collections, or collections which > can only contain a specific type of data. .NET (among other more > established lanuages) uses generics to accomplish this at compile time. > Personally, while I understand how the additional layer of type checking > _could_ be of benefit, I've never run into a situation where typeless > collections have hindered me. > > Roland > -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]
