Robert, Pound signs are used to "output" variables where you want them "display" or (in some cases) to concatenate and create a new variable. They are never used on the left side of an assigment statement.
....wrong... <cfset #x# = 'blah'> ...right.... <cfset x = 'blah'> .... wrong.... <cfif #form.x# IS 'blah'> ..... right..... <cfif Form.x IS 'blah'> Some folks "might" use them for dynamic evaluation - to determine a variable name at run time. For example: <cfif Structkeyexists("#x#")> This is also unnessasary in this case because X can stand alone as in... <cfif Structkeyexist(x)> One case where it is "sometimes" acceptable is when you are building an entirely new string on the fly for dynamic evaluation. For example: <cfif IsDefined("Form.checkbox_#x#")> This sometimes comes into play when you have a series of form elelements generated from a query and you want access them at runtime without knowing in advance how many of them there are - or which items are in the query etc. For the most part, pound signs are unnecessary in about 95% of the cases INSIDE a CF tag (<cfif> <Cfset> etc.). Typically they are used just to send variable values to the output buffer ... .as in <cfoutput>#x#</cfoutput> -mk -----Original Message----- From: Robert Polickoski [mailto:rpolickoski@;isrd.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:42 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.