> It offends me, so I say he should do it. =)
Are you paying him? If so, he should definitely do it!
I used to have the same opinion as you - I couldn't stand working with
other people's code if it didn't meet my own standards. Now that I'm
older, I think life's too short for that. Working code has an
intrinsic value regardless of the ugliness of the source. If you have
to work in that specific source repeatedly, it might be worth
changing, but otherwise just hold your nose and move on.
> From a performance perspective, it might matter if there were a
> thousand of them on a page that was accessed a thousand times per
> second....
In my prior measurements, conducted many years ago, it didn't make a
significant measurable difference.
> I would think that using ["#varname#"] would actually create a new
> string object in the java code where as [varname] would not.. but who
> knows.
I would caution against making any assumptions about the underlying
Java code from the way CF appears to work from the "outside".
> Still, the code IS offensive =)
I agree!
> It would only be worse if it were like this...
>
> <CFSET ERRORS[VARNAME]['STRING'] =
> EVALUATE("ERRORS[""#VARNAME#""][""STRING""]") & "bit to add here.">
>
> Heh. (Yes, that does work)
That's pretty bad. I've seen worse, though. Don't get me started.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:336762
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
