Good idea, but is there any performance penalty to using I-types like that?
-- Louie On 1/29/06, Brian Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
