This issue is certainly an important one and will be come up often. I ran into something similar just yesterday on Railo. They have an isNull() function which CF does not and that ended up *breaking* some of my code because I had defined my own isNull() function in a parent cfc that lots of cfc's inherited from. I ended up changing my function to isNullValue(), and it wasn't a big deal, but it got me thinking that this will definitly come up a lot, especially if the function names you choose are very generic.
A lot of the innovations and differences between the engines are implemented in functions - so the question is how do you continue to encourage innovation without making compatibility a configuration nightmare... I am sure you guys will come up with a great solution! Baz On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Matthew Woodward <[email protected]>wrote: > Adam Haskell wrote: > >> >> I would bring this up in the CFML advisory commitee as it seems different >> engines are taking different routes here and I'd like to see the same >> solution across the board. Without getting into it too much I like the >> solution from Adobe at this point... >> > > Which solution from Adobe do you mean specifically? > > Agree that there should be standards which is what the advisory committee > is working on, but to be fair assert() has been in BlueDragon/OpenBD for a > long time. > > > -- > Matt Woodward > [email protected] > http://www.mattwoodward.com/blog > > Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, > etc. as attachments. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Open BlueDragon Public Mailing List http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en official site @ http://www.openbluedragon.org/ !! save a network - trim replies before posting !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
