I wouldn't declare it dead for the sake of readability. That above anything is a good reason not to use it.
~Todd On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Dinowitz wrote: > I really wish that people using my documents (originally posted in issues of FA) put >down where they got the information from. I see chunks of information on that page >taken directly from me. > Now as for IIS() under MX. I've tested it heavily and there is literally no >difference speed wise between IIF and CFIF. Counting on the run, you can see the >numbers change in the .001 millisecond range which is nothing at all, especially as >the numbers change for both and there is no clear pattern. > That being said, I declare that the "best practice" of not using IIF() is dead as of >MX. > -- ============================================================ Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ | http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator) | http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | ============================================================ ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm 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
