Lately I've been furiously modifying my main work project codebase, going through old (old!) code bits and reworking where I could, to modernize (i.e. take advantage of functions/tags that didn't exist back in the day) and/or just increase efficiency. I fully expect my keyboard to just say "I've had enough" and commit suicide any time now.
One of the things I've been dealing with is my past slackness re: variables and scopes, and the crossing of scopes. I've been tossing in Duplicate() around many scope/var bits when, say, setting a particular variable in an application scoped structure to equal an unscoped var, or a session scoped var. The idea behind that is (and I'm sure I'm not telling anyone anything they don't know) is that a straight up "application.var = session.var" just creates a reference, and doesn't copy by value. So - when running a particular script that uses variables in the app/session scopes, for example, is it all that crucial when going the other way? Is going with "variables.var = application.var" a bad thing, considering that application var is *not* likely to go away anytime soon? Or is it best practice to still copy by value? In such a scenario, should that app scope var change in mid-stream for whatever reason (unlikely), I assume the variables scope var, being a reference, would reflect that change. Assuming there's zero risk of said app scope var changing/vanishing over the execution time of the script, wouldn't the copy-by-reference be just a smidge less of a resource usage than copying by value? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:353544 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
