Seems to be 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of another... but if you initialise 
it properly in one place, and it saves you from doing the check in 2 or 
more places, you've come out ahead.

grant wrote:
> @Dale: It throws.
> @Haikal: Good Point. It's that laziness again - setting up and 
> maintaining defaults can be rather tiresome.
>
> On 05/06/07, *Haikal Saadh * <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Personally, I favour sane defaults rather than having to check for
>     presence of variables all the time. And the bigger and more
>     complicated
>     your data structs get, I think having to check to see if a variable
>     exists is a quick path to insanity.
>
>     Side effect of eating too much spaghetti...
>
>     grant wrote:
>     > Wow thanks for the response people. My question is really out of
>     pure
>     > laziness - I have a huge struct that i need to check a key for -
>     the
>     > actual key path is
>     > session.currentuser.currentreport.filters.currentfilter.filterset ,
>     > where filters, currentfilter and filterset may not be present.
>     so it's
>     > heaps easier to do a
>     > isDefined("
>     session.currentuser.currentreport.filters.currentfilter.filterset")
>     > than structKeyExists(session.currentuser.currentreport , "filters")
>     > and structKeyExists(session.currentuser.currentreport.filters ,
>     > "currentfilter") and so on.
>     >
>     > or am i missing something?
>     >
>     > On 05/06/07, * Haikal Saadh* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >     Having seen more than my fair share of request scope abuse,
>     I can see
>     >     why he would.
>     >
>     >     I think easy access to request in CF can cause poor code.
>     But then
>     >     again, guns don't kill people,  people kill people, right?
>     >
>     >     Peter Tilbrook wrote:
>     >     > I agree (disciplined) but he then bagged the "request"
>     scope so
>     >     now I
>     >     > am not so sure.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     >
>
>
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to