I would second all the points about maintainability and legibility being key.
One additional thing I have seen on one site: Unlike the A/S type dictionaries, there is no standard way of separating base and synonym dictionaries using D types, which can lead to dictionary listing that takes forever to plough through to get to the definitions of later fields, and makes writing automated routines to build BASIC include files more complex. So the convention they adopted was to use D types for all the 'base' fields (one D type per field) and make all synonyms into I types of the form: I Base_Field_Name That way they could see the file layout more easily. I thought that was pretty smart. Brian ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
