As I learned it, pound signs are really only needed when CFOUTPUTting variables and for certain CF tag parameters. For comparisons and functions/expressions, drop the pound signs for clarity and--I think--better performance.
<cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ ""> should be <cfif Form.Formname NEQ ""> And, really, I would use this: <cfif Len(Form.Formname)> Chris Lofback Sr. Web Developer TRX Integration 28051 US 19 N., Ste. C Clearwater, FL 33761 www.trxi.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski@;isrd.com] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:42 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Studio MX > > > I am fairly new to CFML (3 months). You mentioned the "rookie use > of pound signs." How else do you identify variables? > > Robert J. Polickoski > Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc. > (540) 842-6339 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > AIM - RobertJFP > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Mark A. Kruger - CFG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:35:02 -0600 > > >Rick, > > > >Yeah - the file explorer drives me crazy - all the files and > folders > >together... If you have a complex directory structure it means > constantly > >scrolling over to the right to find the right file. > > > >Something else - DWMX has a bunch of wizards to write CF code. > One I saw > >one demonstrated that was the "data-entry" wizard. It built a > form for > >entering records into a database. You provide the DB and select > the form > >elements etc. It was based on a recordset that you create. You > go through > >the wizard and it creates code for you - including validation > code. But the > >CF code very poor. It actuallly did this on the validation: > > > ><cfif #Form.Formname# NEQ ""> > > .... validate blah.... > ></cfif> > > > >Notice the rookie use of the pound signs. It made me wonder if > CF server > >folks were involved in the creation of the CF wizards at all. > > > >-mk > > > >P.S. - Studio 5 rocks. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Rick Root [mailto:rroot@;wakeinternet.com] > >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:00 AM > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject: Re: Studio MX > > > > > >David Adams wrote: > >> Everyone I know is still using studio and if in a pinch > Homesite MX. In > >> our lives we need more simplicity not complexity. > > > >I guess I missed the rest of this thread but I thought I'd chime > in with > >my opinion. > > > >I don't like Dreamweaver MX. We have a Site License for it here > at > >Duke, but I simply don't like it. I don't like the new explorer > layout > >that they use.. I much prefer the directories on top and the > files down > >below. > > > >I'm still using Studio 4.5 and will probably continue to use it > after we > >upgrade to CFMX in the next few weeks. > > > > - Rick > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
