I make the same mistake twice and then move on. The only time I do this syntax is when doing maintenance on a particular project that I inherited and I do it to mimic the existing style used throughout the application in order to maintain the same level of "confusion" Although honestly when I first saw it used all I thought at the time is why does that not throw an error. I knew what the intent was but probably due to the comments/hints within the code. Guess that is what through me off with reading that can't be done since it clearly works but just makes no sense to be done. Just would have been nice to know that it specifically causes XYZ problems and use that as a selling point to scrap it all and do a rewrite. ;)
On 10/16/07, Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
