I think they fixed that in like beta 2 or something... Bob, you should try to keep up a bit more. ;) Just teasing.
That said, I always find it entertaining when I make some pronouncement about how CF needs this or that to work right and someone runs code that shows me up... it reminds me that nobody really knows everything (despite their insistence to the contrary heh). As for the original question, in theory I find myself preferring to use instance data over getters, especially private getters... and yet the OCD side of me can't stand having a setter without its getter, and if there's a method I must call it rather than referring to variables directly. ;) So in practice I end up using private getters. The performance hit for them is minimal, I have an Eclipse snippet for generating the get/set pair almost instantly, and in the long run having that getter there makes it much easier to refactor since you can just change the getter without having to change a bunch of references too. I "get" the idea of using instance data directly, it just doesn't sit as well as the alternative... J On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:48 AM 2/16/10, John Whish wrote: > Cool! I only found that out as I was giving someone a tour of the new CF9 > features and was waiting for it to throw an error because they hadn't used > "this." and it worked! :) > > On 16 February 2010 14:21, Bob Silverberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Holy crap, you're right, John! ... -- 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.
