On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:15 AM, bill[y] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Any cfscripters out there or anyone that codes almost entirely in > cfscript? >
like so many other things, it'll mostly come down to personal preference. i used to write a lot of cfscript because like you, i preferred the brevity. but when <cffunction> came about, the ability to use named arguments trumped the brevity. sure, there's still a lot inside the <cffunction> i could write in cfscript, but i prefer to keep consistent (key term... "i -prefer-") :) i know a few people who, aside from the <cffunction> declaration itself and the <cfargument> tags, write everything else within the function in cfscript. neither right nor wrong. just a personal preference. i've heard that one of the centaur enhancements is going to be the ability to write an entire CFC in cfscript, which i assume means the ability to use named arguments. if this is the case, i may start swinging back the other way. but to your point, if many of those tags you mention aren't implemented in cfscript, i end up with that inconsistent "mishmash". so, we'll see what centaur does... but for now, i've mostly abandoned cfscript (still use it if i need to set a large block of variables, or the occasional situation where i need to write simple one-off UDF) primarily because <cfargument> gives me the ability to do specify argument names and whether or not they're required/optional. -- A byte walks into a bar and orders a pint. Bartender asks him "What's wrong?" Byte says "Parity error." Bartender nods and says "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
