There was in good discussion on the array pass by value/reference on this a
while back:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01670.html
Sean clarified the Adobe ColdFusion behaviour as:
Arrays are actually copy-on-assignment. When you pass an array to a
function, it assigns the array to the argument, creating a copy. When
you return an
array from a function, it does not copy it - unless you assign the
result to a variable. You can see that here:
<cfscript>
a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ];
function getA() { return a; }
b = getA(); // copies a so b is a separate array
b[1] = 42; // does not change a
arrayAppend(getA(), 5); // no assignment - a *is* modified
</cfscript>
On Railo's compatibility; I would be surprised if Railo changed this
particular behaviour for performance reasons. I imagine this decision
was made to implement it how it should have been done in Adobe CF. I
read somewhere that BlueDragon also implements array pass-by-reference
(not sure).
Perhaps the problem is not with Railo, perhaps Adobe should implement:
<cfargument name="myArray" type="Array" passby="reference" />
I do want all of the CFML engines to implement fundamental language
behaviour in the same way, but I don't see a problem in this
particular case.
Fortunately we have a CFML steering committee now which should
hopefully maximise compatibility with CFML engines.
2009/5/21 Dan Wilson <[email protected]>
> You knowm I am of two minds about this. The engineer in me is all about a
> more performant engine. I've made some design mistakes I wish I could fix,
> for performance, for extensibility or for the good of the children...
> whatever. Mistakes happen.
>
> However, for Railo to change the way CFML works, and then tout themselves
> as faster and better is a little bit rich. Sure you can be faster/better if
> you don't implement everything ColdFusion does. But you aren't fully
> competing then either, are you?
>
> Take Chris's example, the xe.formaction='whatever'. Sure this is slower to
> look up. Sure if I was writing an engine for pure speed I'd try to not
> support it, heck it affects EVERY variable lookup. However, the standard
> (good, bad or ugly) has been set for years and ColdFusion supports it. For
> Railo to not support it means they are out of compliance with ColdFusion and
> I would be very hesitant to use Railo on existing code for that reason.
>
> In short, I love the idea of Railo and I love the idea of a faster engine.
> I don't love Cherry Picking which parts of ColdFusion to support and which
> to leave off for performance, then selling yourself based on performance. If
> Railo fully implements the ColdFusion spec, without requiring non-standard
> CFML attributes, compiler options and the like, then I'll be impressed.
>
>
> DW
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Before posting questions to the group please read:
http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transfer-dev" 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/transfer-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
