Arguments - Struct or Array

[Adrian Lynch]

If you had to choose to treat the arguments scope as a structure or array when using its member functions, would you prefer an array or a structure?

Based on this:

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RAILO-3010

arguments.find("A value in the arguments scope") // Array - Works

arguments.keyExists("anArgumentName") // Structure - Fails

I almost exclusively treat it as a structure.

What about the rest of yas?

Adrian

[Chris Blackwell]

struct

--
Did you find this reply useful? Help the Railo community and add it to the Railo Server wiki at https://github.com/getrailo/railo/wiki
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Railo" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/CAH368SRc78aVqePUTntm65O%3DpQhdVfdO1f0po2ReQeD08r3R-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Igal @ getRailo.org]

Struct -- definitely

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/CAB%3DtfTpCYJSOf5cicisdz3VbG_FZnc7iUPsUZUT63K5sJUvMng%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
Igal Sapir
Railo Core Developer
http://getRailo.org/

[Carl Von Stetten]

+1 - struct.
-Carl V.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/533ACFBF.9050704%40getrailo.org.

[Adam Cameron]

On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 15:21:13 UTC+1, Adrian Lynch wrote:

If you had to choose to treat the arguments scope as a structure or array when using its member functions, would you prefer an array or a structure?

 

Why are we limiting this to an either/or scenario? The arguments scope is neither a struct nor an array, although it implements behaviour of both. So why not just reflect this in its methods?

-- 

Adam

[Matt Quackenbush]

Ayep. Struct.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/533B00D2.1000708%40vonner.net.

[Michael Offner]

struct

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/CAKa5oqLGWkO7mZUifYR1w%2BfVhzLpUB4auXwAeN0ciRG2PKw_Yw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

/micha

Michael Offner CTO Railo Technologies GmbH

[Michael Offner]

because it is confusing, see list/string function discussion

Micha

--

Did you find this reply useful? Help the Railo community and add it to the Railo Server wiki at https://github.com/getrailo/railo/wiki
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Railo" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/1c64e375-af26-4cf2-b816-09e8063675fe%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Adam Cameron]

No, it's not.

What would be confusing would be to implement member functions in a way that don't match of the thing can be used with "procedural" functions. if I can call arrayLen(arguments), then I should be able to call arguments.len() (or whatever). Where there is a conflict (say the array "interface" and struct "interface" have same-named methods), then you'll need to give it some additional thought as to how to deal with that.

The arguments scope is not a struct, so it would be "confusing" to implement its member functions as it it were.

-- 

Adam

[Adam Cameron]

Oh, and might I add you are beginning to start to sound like Adobe, second-guessing how thick you perceive your community's developers are, and making dumbed-down decisions on that basis.

If someone gets confused (and, hey, I'm not saying some people won't!), then they will either very quickly work out what's going on by reading the docs (oh hohohoho) or asking here / StackOverflow / etc. Then they will not be confused. Or they will be the sort of person who never stops being confused, and will not be helped, but there's no point in specifically addressing that sort of person, because they probably won't be using this stuff anyhow.

-- 

Adam

[Todd]

Zing? :)

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Adam Cameron <dac...@gmail.com> wrote:

then they will either very quickly work out what's going on by reading the docs (oh hohohoho)

-- 

Adam

[Michael Offner]

See my comments between the lines

Micha

2014-04-02 14:32 GMT+02:00 Adam Cameron <dac...@gmail.com>:

No, it's not.

What would be confusing would be to implement member functions in a way that don't match of the thing can be used with "procedural" functions. if I can call arrayLen(arguments), then I should be able to call arguments.len() (or whatever). Where there is a conflict (say the array "interface" and struct "interface" have same-named methods), then you'll need to give it some additional thought as to how to deal with that.

The arguments scope is not a struct,

<cfscript>

  function test(){

  writeOutput(isStruct(arguments)); // Railo/ACF:true

  writeOutput(isArray(arguments)); // Railo:true;ACF:false

  }

  test();

</cfscript>

 

so it would be "confusing" to implement its member functions as it it were.

-- 

Adam

On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 07:30:29 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:

because it is confusing, see list/string function discussion

Micha

2014-04-01 20:12 GMT+02:00 Adam Cameron <dac...@gmail.com>:

On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 15:21:13 UTC+1, Adrian Lynch wrote:

If you had to choose to treat the arguments scope as a structure or array when using its member functions, would you prefer an array or a structure?

 

Why are we limiting this to an either/or scenario? The arguments scope is neither a struct nor an array, although it implements behaviour of both. So why not just reflect this in its methods?

--

Did you find this reply useful? Help the Railo community and add it to the Railo Server wiki at https://github.com/getrailo/railo/wiki
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Railo" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/61b6efd0-b740-48c1-b694-bc640552d8d6%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Offner]

again between the lines

Micha

2014-04-02 14:41 GMT+02:00 Adam Cameron <dac...@gmail.com>:

Oh, and might I add you are beginning to start to sound like Adobe,

that hurts ;-)

 

second-guessing how thick you perceive your community's developers are, and making dumbed-down decisions on that basis.

If someone gets confused (and, hey, I'm not saying some people won't!), then they will either very quickly work out what's going on by reading the docs (oh hohohoho) or asking here / StackOverflow / etc. Then they will not be confused. Or they will be the sort of person who never stops being confused, and will not be helped, but there's no point in specifically addressing that sort of person, because they probably won't be using this stuff anyhow.

i asked myself, what is a "arguments" scope for me, a array a struct or both?

For me it is clearly a s struct that can be used as array, but it is not a array.

Like a men wearing women's clothes.

So maybe it is just confusing for me ... (the arguments scope not the clothes)

 

-- 

Adam

On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 13:32:08 UTC+1, Adam Cameron wrote:

No, it's not.

What would be confusing would be to implement member functions in a way that don't match of the thing can be used with "procedural" functions. if I can call arrayLen(arguments), then I should be able to call arguments.len() (or whatever). Where there is a conflict (say the array "interface" and struct "interface" have same-named methods), then you'll need to give it some additional thought as to how to deal with that.

The arguments scope is not a struct, so it would be "confusing" to implement its member functions as it it were.

-- 

Adam

On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 07:30:29 UTC+1, Michael Offner wrote:

because it is confusing, see list/string function discussion

Micha

2014-04-01 20:12 GMT+02:00 Adam Cameron <dac...@gmail.com>:

On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 15:21:13 UTC+1, Adrian Lynch wrote:

If you had to choose to treat the arguments scope as a structure or array when using its member functions, would you prefer an array or a structure?

 

Why are we limiting this to an either/or scenario? The arguments scope is neither a struct nor an array, although it implements behaviour of both. So why not just reflect this in its methods?

--
Did you find this reply useful? Help the Railo community and add it to the Railo Server wiki at https://github.com/getrailo/railo/wiki
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Railo" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/69028c09-4633-4dfe-b7bb-a2fb0561fefc%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Adam Cameron]

<cfscript>

  function test(){

  writeOutput(isStruct(arguments)); // Railo/ACF:true

  writeOutput(isArray(arguments)); // Railo:true;ACF:false

  }

  test();

</cfscript>

 

FFS, Micha. Stop being (purposely, I suspect) obtuse:

function f(){

var a = []

var st = {}

dump([

arguments.getClass().getName(),

a.getClass().getName(),

st.getClass().getName()

])

dump([

arrayLen(arguments),

structCount(arguments)

])

}

f(a=1)

Array
1	string railo.runtime.type.scope.ArgumentImpl
2	string railo.runtime.type.ArrayImpl
3	string railo.runtime.type.StructImpl

Array
1	number 1
2	number 1

 It. Is. Not. A. Struct.

Can you please stop wasting everyone's time trying to suggest that it is.

-- 

Adam

[Adam Cameron]

2014-04-02 14:41 GMT+02:00 Adam Cameron <dac...@gmail.com>:

Oh, and might I add you are beginning to start to sound like Adobe,

that hurts ;-)

Well there you go.

 

i asked myself, what is a "arguments" scope for me, a array a struct or both?

For me it is clearly a s struct that can be used as array, but it is not a array.

Well - like I said - it's neither but it behaves like both. Which is not at all confusing if one considers that classes implement multiple interfaces all the time.

But no matter how many times you say it, it's not struct.

 

 

So maybe it is just confusing for me ... (the arguments scope not the clothes)

Photos pls. I think we should determine how confused you look in this situation.

-- 

Adam

[Michael Offner]

From technical perspective it is clearly a struct, because ArgumentImpl does implement the interface Struct, like every other scope as well!

because of that you can use scopes with all struct functions ...

That is out of the question (from technical perspective)! 

Special is that the ArgumentImpl class implements the interface Array as well ...

Micha

--

Did you find this reply useful? Help the Railo community and add it to the Railo Server wiki at https://github.com/getrailo/railo/wiki
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Railo" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/railo/4746247b-8b0a-4a9d-bd4d-b26a949d342f%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ML]

Hi,

I have always thought that the arguments scope was a struct.  Until I started getting error on this piece of code.  Can't cast [a] string to a number value

    function printArgs(  ){

        arguments.each( function( key ){
            dump( key );
        })
    }

    printArgs ( a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 );

Since .each() is supposed to be implemented for both struct and array, it seems that arguments is neither.  Or is this a bug?

Interestingly, this works:

    function printArgs(  ){

        for( key in arguments )
            dump( key );
    }

    printArgs ( a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 );

[ML]

Casting the arguments into a struct gives the same error.

    function printArgs( ){

        printStruct( arguments );

    }

    function printStruct( struct data ){

        arguments.data.each( function( key ){
            dump( key );
        })

    }

    printArgs ( a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 );  // this throws an error: Can't cast [a] string to a number value
    printStruct(  { a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 } );  // this works

[Adam Cameron]

I agree this is a bug. You should raise it as such.

Whilst checking this, I noticed a different bug in ColdFusion with the same code, as it happens. Details here, for those who are interested: http://cfmlblog.adamcameron.me/2014/07/different-bugs-in-each-function-in-each.html

-- 

Adam

[ML]

Done.  Thanks for verifying the bug.

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/RAILO-3129