Yeah, it doesn't work :P unfortunately
On 10/24/07, Sam Larbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have CF setup on me at the moment, but has anyone tried passing
> named arguments that are numbers (preferably, the number relates to its
> position)?
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Looking into this some more, this won't allow you to pass in unamed
> > arguments dynamically, such as from oMM... so maybe it's not as useful
> > as I had originally thought.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Okay... amazing what comes out when you actually test something out.
> > >
> > > I don't know *how* this works, but apparently it does.
> > >
> > > I wrote a quick CFC called 'A' It looks like:
> > >
> > > <cfcomponent output="false">
> > >
> > > <cffunction name="init" hint="Constructor" access="public"
> > > returntype="A" output="false">
> > > <cfscript>
> > > instance = StructNew();
> > >
> > > instance.test = "test";
> > >
> > > return this;
> > > </cfscript>
> > > </cffunction>
> > >
> > > <cffunction name="dynamic" hint="" access="public" returntype="void"
> > > output="false">
> > > <cfscript>
> > > var func = variables["test"];
> > > var ret = 0;
> > >
> > > func("dynamic");
> > > </cfscript>
> > > </cffunction>
> > >
> > > <cffunction name="getInstance" hint="" access="public"
> > > returntype="struct" output="false">
> > > <cfreturn instance />
> > > </cffunction>
> > >
> > > <cffunction name="test" hint="" access="public" returntype="void"
> > > output="false">
> > > <cfargument name="test" hint="" type="string" required="Yes">
> > > <cfscript>
> > > instance.test = arguments.test;
> > > </cfscript>
> > > </cffunction>
> > >
> > > </cfcomponent>
> > >
> > > First things first:
> > >
> > > <cfscript>
> > > a = createObject("component", "A").init();
> > > </cfscript>
> > >
> > > <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
> > >
> > > Dumps out:
> > > TEST test
> > >
> > > Next...
> > >
> > > <cfscript>
> > > a.test("thing");
> > > </cfscript>
> > >
> > > <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
> > >
> > > Dumps out:
> > > TEST thing
> > >
> > > Next.. and the weird one:
> > >
> > > <cfscript>
> > > a.dynamic();
> > > </cfscript>
> > >
> > > <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
> > >
> > > Dumps out:
> > > TEST dynamic
> > >
> > > What the? This is very cool, but I don't get it! The setting of the
> > > function to a local var scope variable still allows it access to the
> > > parent CFC's instance scope... and lets it change it as it needs to.
> > >
> > > This will be very handy for things like onMM, but I'm totally shocked
> > > it actually works...
> > >
> > > So guess this was actually the way to go.
> > >
> > > Bizarre!
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 10/23/07, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > Hey Brian, you are right that the problem could be solved using a
> convention
> > > > of always using the method name as the argument name, or even deciding
> on a
> > > > single generic argument name like "Value". But imagine if you were
> building
> > > > a shared object that will be used by other members of your team, in my
> case
> > > > a generic data object that can either pull from the variables.instance
> > > > scope, or, if so defined, can use a custom function to set the value.
> Well
> > > > you could teach everyone a convention/methodology to achieve this, but
> why
> > > > not make it as intuitive as possible and just send a single un-named
> > > > argument, as any setter method expects. That way your coders don't
> have to
> > > > remember random syntax and can focus on the core of the problem. It
> just
> > > > makes the user experience better.
> > > >
> > > > On an un-related side-note, I think this is the first time I've
> noticed TAG
> > > > syntax not being able to accomplish something that SCRIPT syntax can -
> > > > usually its the other way around.
> > > >
> > > > Baz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/22/07, Brian Kotek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Interesting, I hadn't really run into a situation like that before!
> Most
> > > > of my dynamic method calls tend to be autopopulating beans, or calling
> a
> > > > method and passing an argumentCollection. Hadn't gotten into chains of
> > > > dynamic method calls (but maybe I will now heh).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/22/07, Sean Corfield < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/22/07, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm still a bit fuzzy though on why you would be calling a
> method
> > > > whose
> > > > > > > arguments you would "never know" the names of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I run into that a lot - in dynamic programming you know nothing
> about
> > > > > > the methods you are calling beyond the name and approximate
> calling
> > > > > > sequence. I use getMetadata() on the function to find its
> arguments.
> > > > > > See:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> http://org-corfield-cfmx.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/wwwroot/org/corfield/component.cfc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The call() method handles arbitrary dynamic calls.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
> > > > > > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
> > > > > > -- Margaret Atwood
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > W: www.compoundtheory.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > W: www.compoundtheory.com
> >
> > > >
> >
>
--
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: www.compoundtheory.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
