e" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> We're getting mired in semantics. We're technically both correct.
>
>
> but we can continue the conversation, i
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
sounds like Christopher is got a new problem with CFIF/IIF???
too much coffee??? :)
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Olive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF
sounds like Christopher is got a new problem with CFIF/IIF???
too much coffee??? :)
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Olive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
We're getting mired in sema
Basically 1 Line CODE VS 5 Lines CODE
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
It is, but it's secondary to the IIF() speed problem itself. DE() only
comp
We're getting mired in semantics. We're technically both correct.
but we can continue the conversation, if you like. :)
-Original Message-
From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF
Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
>
>
> While the while issue of DE verses staged quotes is an important one, the
> speed difference between IIF(
ColdFusion Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:44 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
While the while issue of DE verses staged quotes is an important one, the
speed di
("even")#
>
>
>
> Joe
> Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:28 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF stat
uot;)#
Joe
Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
Actually, the main problem with using IIF() now is tha
Actually, the main problem with using IIF() now is that few people know how to use it
right. The double evaluation issue, using DE vs. double quoting, etc. I'm going to
have to revise my paper on it and get it out there again. :)
http://www.fusionauthority.com/iif.cfm
> I wouldn't declare it d
I'm declaring it dead for the sake of it not being an issue anymore. My original post
and times for it showed IIF() being half as fast as CFIF. This is no longer true.
Readability is a totally different issue.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/alert/index.cfm?alertid=9#Tech1
http://www.fusionauth
I wouldn't declare it dead for the sake of readability. That above
anything is a good reason not to use it.
~Todd
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> I really wish that people using my documents (originally posted in issues of FA) put
>down where they got the information from. I s
>remember where. That using IIF() is slower.
> >
> > > --
> > > From: Adrian Lynch[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 16 July 2002 11:36
> > > To: CF-Talk
> > > Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> &
>>
>> True, I have looked at Fusebox, but at the moment I am not building a
>> Fusebox app, but I see your point and I should use what I know about
> Fusebox
>> and apply it to my none Fusebox code.
>>
>
> Start out with the techniques in FB2 and you'll get your coding standards
> to
> something l
Sorry I meant:
...
Kola
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2002 14:49
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> Has this always worked?
>
> I'm sure I tried it in an earlier version of cf (4.5) I think,
&
>
> True, I have looked at Fusebox, but at the moment I am not building a
> Fusebox app, but I see your point and I should use what I know about
Fusebox
> and apply it to my none Fusebox code.
>
Start out with the techniques in FB2 and you'll get your coding standards to
something like you're try
, Stephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:13 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
**
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Please refer to the disclaimer beneath this message
app, but I see your point and I should use what I know about Fusebox
and apply it to my none Fusebox code.
> --
> From: Douglas Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 July 2002 16:20
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Adams, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> *
help me design better code.
Stephen
> --
> From: Joe Bastian[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 July 2002 16:06
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
>
> The LEAST no of "CFIF" is the route to best code/sp
> If QueryResults is supposed to be a boolean, isn't
> it better to make it a boolean? Doesn't that make
> it easier to understand the intent of the code?
You can certainly make this argument, but it's hard to confuse the intent of
code which uses integers to determine boolean values. For example
ephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Writing efficient CFIF statements
**
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Please refer to the disclaimer
true...my bad
Douglas Brown
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "S. Isaac Dealey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> > c
> couldn't you just say...
>
You would only ever get one result from the evaluation... because the length
of recordcount will never be less than 1 ... i.e. is the
same as ... works tho...
Isaac Dealey
www.turnkey.to
954-776-0046
__
t: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
but it IS a boolean. 1 and 0 are boolean yes and no (in most
languages).
chris olive
-Original Message-
From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
couldn't you just say...
Douglas Brown
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick McElhaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:20 AM
Subject: RE: Writing efficie
but it IS a boolean. 1 and 0 are boolean yes and no (in most languages).
chris olive
-Original Message-
From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
If QueryResults is supposed to be
> Has this always worked?
>
> I'm sure I tried it in an earlier version of cf (4.5) I think,
> and it didn't work.
>
> Can anyone confirm this?
If by "this", you mean the fact that CF evaluates non-zero values as true
and zero as false, yes, that's worked in every version of CF back to at
leas
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> Clean and fast:
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and kee
July 16, 2002 8:25 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
>
>
> This thread is odd. As Tim pointed out earlier, any non-zero
> value evaluates as TRUE so you can just say
> and be done with it.
> That's far cleaner for the eye.
>
>
>
OTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> Clean and fast:
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com.
Clean and fast:
Patrick
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/fa
s, Stephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
**
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Please refer to the disclaimer beneath th
I just tested it on MX and it works the same.
Tim P.
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> &
> Looks cleaner, but isn't it slower?
>
> >
> > Any opionions on:
> >
> > > DE("True"))>
> >
IIF is supposed to be a little inefficient, but its like all these things.
Its probably take a couple of milliseconds longer, so it really makes no
difference.
I'm not sure I agree with the "looks clean
heers.
> --
> From: Tim Painter[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 July 2002 11:51
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
>
> IIF is slower. Couldn't you just do:
>
>
>
> If recordcount is 0, it would
--
> > From: Adrian Lynch[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 16 July 2002 11:36
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> >
> > Looks cleaner, but isn't it slower?
> >
> > -Original Message-
IIF is slower. Couldn't you just do:
If recordcount is 0, it would be false anyway
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: Writing effici
agree with Adrian that it could be slower. I have heard somewhere can't
remember where. That using IIF() is slower.
> --
> From: Adrian Lynch[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 July 2002 11:36
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF s
Looks cleaner, but isn't it slower?
-Original Message-
From: Hugo Ahlenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2002 11:31
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
Any opionions on:
?
Cheers,
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
|
|
| Stephen,
|I usually like to set things either "true" or "false".
| (or 1 or 0). The true or false is a little more visual, I
| think -- so to use your example, I would do it like:
|
|
|
|
|
.
- Original Message -
From: "Adams, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:08 AM
Subject: Writing efficient CFIF statements
>
**
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Please refer to the disclaimer beneath this message
**
Hi,
I am trying to put more structure into my CF code. My idea is to separat
43 matches
Mail list logo
