I was just curious to see under which circumstances it could be a problem
and if that applied to my situaton, I was going to reconsider my coding.
What you have told me so far makes me relax.

There are some "old truths" that gets repeated on this NG. Many of them are
of course still valid but IMHO there are a few that could be questioned.

Anders

As with all "old truths", some may have been valid once and have been
promulgated but may no longer apply. Computers become faster, Operating
Systems more stable, there is no longer a 640K memory barrier, etc etc.
Some may have been very valid in P5 with Win3.1 and no longer apply in
P10 or P11 with Win XP.

I'm with you. I haven't had any problems with containership when using
named notebooks and notebook pages. But then again, I like to name
containers and preface references to objects with the container name in
code, because I believe it makes for easier maintenance and understanding.

Tom K

Anders Jonsson wrote:

Hi,
it's an old discussion and Dennis, you always have been a promoter of not
naming objects :-) (you remember? formdata-names to attach() in libs?). So
I'm curious like Anders.
I named my notebook-tabs and lots of objects and never remember getting any
problem with it (P9).
Well, as I understand you: naming or not naming 'this is the question' but
not dogmatism ;-)

Egbert, 23:46in Germany

"Anders Jonsson" <gt3TakeThisAway (AT) bredband (DOT) net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4417baa8 (AT) pnews (DOT) thedbcommunity.com...

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:46:54 +0100, Egbert Babst wrote:

With Egbert, Tom, and Anders happily naming notebook tabs for years, I feel
a little better. I have always named notebook tabs, because I can't
otherwise use the Object Explorer easily. In fact, I'll cheerfully rename
anything whose noise name causes me the slightest bit of befuddlement.
Seldom do I have to type in the full object path (although I had to do this
just today!). When that happens, well, say "la vee!"

Jim H.

As I said, whatever you find works for you. I certainly have not had issues with
NOT naming them either.

Denn Santoro
President
Resource Development Associates
http://www.RDAWorldWide.Com
Offices in the United States and Germany
Providing solutions to health care, business, governments and non-profits since
1982

I think that if you find that you're able to or more comfortable writing
code without renaming the objects, you're better off because there will be
times when naming the objects just isn't possible.... I believe Vladimir ran
into this issue while developing his "PxForms". He had to deal with
addressing deeply buried objects that were being created on the fly.

Not naming objects also involves less code and as Dennis has pointed out,
allows Paradox to perform certain record posting functions without requiring
even more addition code.

That said... I find myself naming almost every object with meaningful names.
It helps "me" greatly to understand what my code is doing.... especially if
I have to come back to it. I've also found that my code becomes more
portable because I can take container objects that hold many many other
objects and paste it into another Form without fear of running into
duplicate name issues because the objects are being referenced by an entire
container path.

I think both ways work.... It's what ever floats your boat. Some 'purest'
would no doubt find that renaming objects and having to use entire object
container paths is a sign of unprofessionalism.... Personally, I'd rather
be considered unprofessional then have to bust my brain later trying to
figure out what and where an object is by reading the code.... I like things
to be obvious.... even if it requires more code.

But... using my methods.... it would be pretty hard (if not impossible) to
develop something like Vladimir's PxForms.


--
....
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> rodney