Patch? Oh yes, please! :D Glad to see you guys are working on this.
On May 24, 8:25 pm, Mark Mandel <mark.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > Luis, can you send me a patch with the appropriate place this workaround > needs to be placed inside Transfer? > > Mark > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Kevan Stannard > <kevanstann...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > There was in good discussion on the array pass by value/reference on this a > > while back: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/cfc...@googlegroups.com/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 <sipac...@gmail.com> > > >> 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 > > -- > E: mark.man...@gmail.com > W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 transfer-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfer-dev-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
