Leonard Berkowitz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>As a consultant, I saw one application (not where I am consulting now, I
hasten to
>add!) where list processing was used, but the list of items consisted of
every item
>in each data set. The combination of the worst of item lists and '@', eh?


I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is the worst of both worlds. It
may not be THE best, but consider this. If the fully defined item list is
kept in a copylib and updated when new items are added to the database, then
any new program development will immediately have then entire dataset
available to it. Older programs will still continue to function without
recompile. Plus you don't have to maintain a separate item list in each
program that contains only the fields referenced therein. IMHO paring down
the item list does not have enough measurable performance impact to outweigh
the derived benefits to maintenance and development. YMMV.

Doug Werth                                     Beechglen Development Inc.
[log in to unmask]                                       Cincinnati, Ohio


The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views or opinions
of Beechglen Development. They might, but not necessarily. They represent
solely the opinions of the author.