If I am not correct the faithful will help us out... but this is my understanding. Note this is the current MX 6.1 that seems to work for me.
1. Var... local to this function (<CFFUNCTION> if you prefer.) 2. This... local to whole CFC... exposed to outside via ( cfcName.variableName )... which on inside would be ( this.variableName ) 3. Variables... local to CFC... not exposed to outside. NOTE: Calling template can access the this scope via the note above in number 2. If you cfinclude files from the CFC they can see local scope varaibles that were visable to the code segment that called the include. John Farrar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nolan Erck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: [CFCDev] scope reality check Can somebody just double-check me really fast here? Inside a CFC... the "var" scope and the "this" scope are equal, and both mean "local to the function/method". Correct? is the Variables scope "private" for the entire CFC? But not accessible from the calling template? Is that all correct? Thanks. Going cross-eyed, Nolan ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words '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] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words '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]
