Somehow, when I was learning FB3, I accidentally got into the habit of naming my XFAs as fusebox.XFA.whatever... I later realized that this was incorrect, but it sure works well. I've since defined fusebox.XFA = structNew() in my fbx_settings just to keep it pretty.
I know it's probably wrong and I understand the idea is to let the core files define all of the fusebox variables, but it looks nice. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: Tyler Silcox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FB3, CF MX and fuseaction variable I say keep 'em the way they are, structures help to keep everything nice and tidy. And as a bonus, NEO...ahem...CFMX will automatically create a structure of <cfset XFA.AddRecord="Records.AddNew">, StructNew() is going to be deprecated (I think...) Tyler Silcox email | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Chastain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:37 AM Subject: RE: FB3, CF MX and fuseaction variable Why give up on the dot notation? I have not done much with CFMX yet, but if the issue is really only becuase XFA's are not a true structure, then is it not much easier to make them a structure with one command (<cfset xfa = structnew()>) than to change all instances of xfa.? XFA's would seem to be as much of a structure as fusebox., so why not make them an official structure? ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
