You are correct, Aaron. No one will pay for such an alteration. The customers wouldn't understand what they were paying for and even if they did, they would rather have the latest wizbang feature, than semantically correct code. That being said, clarity is an ideal to be strived for.
Don't misunderstand me, however. this veThere is plenty of code I've written in the past that I am ashamed of. I am probably writing ry moment and don't even know it. I do, however, make it a practice to not make the same mistake twice ;) DW On 10/16/07, Aaron Rouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, so it just should not be done because it might confuse other people. > At least on this one, the hint attributes on the arguments say something to > the effect of this is required but if not passed in it will default to > whatever. Guess they were kind enough to explain their thought process, to > some degree, in why they wrote it that way. It looks like it was just to > know how the argument is referenced within the method, but I am purely > speculating on that and heck maybe they just did it to avoid a error being > thrown. Of course this still does not leave me with a valid reason to sell > someone in changing the code since their argument back would be if everyone > so far understood it then they are not going to pay someone to change it > just in hopes of not confusing someone down the road. > > On 10/16/07, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > It has no impact on server performance. It just makes the API less clear > > to anyone who needs to use the CFC: do I need to pass this in or don't I? > > Setting required="true" when I am actually not required to pass the argument > > is misleading (in my opinion). I would argue that CF *should* throw an error > > if I specify an argument as required and then don't pass it in. > > > > On 10/16/07, Aaron Rouse < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > And the downside to the confused API is? These particular CFCs I am > > > thinking about have been in place for years and heavily used in a shared > > > hosting environment, the current one being rock steady but I could not > > > speak > > > for the prior ones since that is before my time. So kind of curious > > > beyond > > > confusing a person when they look at it, what is the downside in regards > > > to > > > the server processing it since does not seem to have adverse or must be > > > minimal effects with the API "confused". > > > > > > I actually seem to recall reading a thread about this quite sometime > > > ago and thought in the discussion people were surprised that it worked one > > > way vs the other. Maybe was on the BD list because I keep thinking > > > something > > > specific with that syntax involved BD perhaps it throws an error with BD > > > but > > > I long since slept since all of that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Aaron Rouse > http://www.happyhacker.com/ > > > -- "Come to the edge, he said. They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came. He pushed them and they flew." Guillaume Apollinaire quotes --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
