Well CF could use the same technique that VB did. VB optionally allows
variables to be declared as a type. If no type is declared then the
variable is considered of type variant. For example, the following could
work with CF.
<cfset int foobar = 1>
or
<cfscript>
int foobar = 1;
</cfscript>
Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Integer instead of the following.
<cfset foobar = 1>
or
<cfscript>
foobar = 1;
</cfscript>
Would declare a coldfusion.runtime.Variable.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:56 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: FW: Jsp Vs Cfm (CFMX) -- Test Code
>
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 09:41 , Dick Applebaum wrote:
> > Rather I suggest that CFMX allow us to tell it a variable's type
> > (optionally) so that it can use that to generate efficient code,
>
> That would make ColdFusion quite a different language! :)
>
> Yes, it's certainly one possible approach, allowing the user to
declare
> variables with a type (and extending the CF types to include "integer"
> would also be a useful enhancement, instead of just "numeric" and
"binary"
> ).
>
> I actually prefer the code analysis approach since it allows CFMX's
> compiler to evolve without requiring users to change their code and
could
> substantially speed up certain constructs in legacy code.
>
> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
> -- Margaret Atwood
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
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
