On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 12:48 , Hal Helms wrote: > I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this" > scope and making this public.
Why? "this" scope in Java is for public data members (as well as private data members). "this" scope in C++ is for public data members (as well as private data members). > But using an "unnamed scope" seems to > me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented. Elsewhere in CF 'variables' and the unnamed scope are synonymous. We have already acknowledged a bug that 'variables' does not behave correctly inside components. That bug will be fixed. > The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint a > product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to > expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have overloadable > methods, overloadable constructors, etc. Since "this" is *not* a private scope specifically in any OO language I can think of, I think your expectations are wrong - based on lack of knowledge of other OO languages perhaps? As myself and Matt have pointed out, overloading belongs in strongly typed languages, not typeless ones. Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
