I actively hate this new feature. I mean other than being a pain in the arse for the coders, what does it actually give you that wrapping the whole thing in a cfscript block wouldn't ?
Is it cleaner, I mean really ? Alan, please tell me its lower down the list than some stuff that's actually useful :) My 2p A On 4 September 2011 21:00, Alan Williamson (aw2.0 cloud experts) < [email protected]> wrote: > Well yeah that is true ... however the developers i come in contact with > and assist, CFSCRIPT is still a mystery to them. So i don't think its wide > spread. > > I don't think its hurt OpenBD adoption in the slightest because we don't > support it. It is coming, so it will soon become a moot point. > > > Sean Corfield wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Alan Williamson (aw2.0 cloud > experts)<[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aah yes, we don't support that yet ... but its being looked into. Not a > hugely used feature, hence the reason we haven't supported it thus. > > That depends on who you ask, I suspect. Folks on ACF9 and Railo 3.2 > are using component { ... } a lot because they can. FW/1 2.0 and DI/1 > both require that so they won't run on OpenBD at the moment. > > -- > official tag/function reference: http://openbd.org/manual/ > mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en > -- Alex Skinner Managing Director Pixl8 Interactive Tel: +448452600726 Email: [email protected] Web: pixl8.co.uk -- official tag/function reference: http://openbd.org/manual/ mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
