Well, in my case it was not such a simple choice, as I'm trying to build some abstract CFC tools that operate on an arbitrary CFC instance.
Thanks for the confirmation, though. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Sean A Corfield > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Where "is" the unnamed scope in 6.1? > > > On Saturday, Sep 13, 2003, at 17:35 US/Pacific, Nathan Dintenfass wrote: > > As an earlier thread pointed out, the "unnamed" scope in CFC instances > > appears to still be with us, independent of the Variables scope. If I > > make > > unscoped variables, for instance, in my pseudo-constructor they do not > > appear in Variables. That seems contrary to the way the rest of CFML > > works, > > so I wonder if it's intended behavior. > > I know you later said "scratch that" but I wanted to say that there do > still appear to be some little anomalies in the way 'variables' scope > and unnamed scope align, partly due to backward compatibility issues > I'm sure. If you are consistent - and either always use unnamed scope > or always use 'variables' scope then you are fine but you probably > shouldn't mix them. > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
