RE: Since its so quiet lately . . .

[Matthew Woodward]

Amen to this--you should scope for the sake of clarity first and foremost.  
I had to take over maintenance on an application a couple of years ago and 
the original coder didn't scope anything.  Not only was this horrendously 
annoying, it caused several rather insidious bugs where, for example, a 
local variable and a form variable with the same name were getting used on 
the same page.  It just isn't good coding practice not to scope your 
variables.  I personally couldn't care less about the small performance 
gain, but I do care about inheriting someone else's code when they haven't 
scoped anything.  It's just a lot nastier to wade through, and as others 
have said, I like seeing "form." because then I know exactly where that 
variable came from.

Matt

----Original Message Follows----
From: S.Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Since its so quiet lately . . .
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:44:34 -0500
That being said I don't personaly scope for the sake of
performance. I never have. I scope for the sake of clarity.
That and the fact that certain scopes (attributes) can not
be referenced by an unscoped variable. I find it much easier
to read a new piece of someone else's code when the majority
of the variables are scoped. I find my own code easier to
read as well -- and -- it also eliminates the possibility of
unscoped local variables being accidentally or maliciously
supplanted by hand-mangled url variables.
_________________________________________________________________
Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam

-----------------------------------------------
To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: 
  Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org