My colleague found, that Cascade delete (and I assume Update) is not working properly. (I have multiple levels of triggers execution). I'm going to try to trace it down.

>>>Well, if you are happy
>>>
>>>some thoughts
>>>
>>>(1) I have a problem with.
>>>

>>>luNewKey       = evaluate(m.lcAlias + "." + m.lcParentKeyExp)
>>>
>>>What if lcParentKeyExp is bintoc(cust_id)
>>>

>>>
>>
>>Valid point, I haven't thought about it, since in our system all keys are simple keys. I guess it would be simpler to switch to the table (select it), evaluate, then switch back instead of trying to parse the expression.
>>
>>>(2) I see you have built the table with ataginfo(). You can take it a step further (one of prev messages) (now you scan two tables, then you would scan only one)
>>>Build one table which contains a field : Memo, Function ToCall: Cascade_parent('bintoc(fld,2)', '....', '')
>>>
>>>for simplicity and readbility
>>
>>I will still have to evaluate it in run-time, so I don't see it as a big improvement.
>
>Yes, but you skip a whole bunch of tests and avoid two scan loops
>
>
>>
>>>Why not call all the necesary functions dependening on the table and triggertype ? That would take out a lot of spaghetti
>>>Each function will test if it must do anything (keyexpr changed) and gracefully exit
>>>
>>>

>>>select Into array (table , triggertype)
>>>for
>>>   if( !eval(rtrim(aa[m.i])) )
>>>      Success = FALSE
>>>      exit
>>>   endif
>>>endfor
>>>

>>>
>>
>>I was thinking last night about some further optimizations of the code. Basically, I believe, that this statement is true (though I'm going to test it). If our table is a parent table, then there is only one key field, that we need to test, e.g. there could be only one primary key, and it is involved in relations. Am I right?
>>
>>>( I do not think that the following line takes too much time (could be wrong though)
>>>

>>>if ( eval(keyExpr) == oldval(keyExpr) )
>>>

>>>
>>I think it did. At least my code is now running about 100 times faster than before.
>
>It would be evaluated once per relation involved if and only if two relations share the same key expr.
>I suspect the factor 100 is not a result of that. But anyway
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>(3) break it down, ie why not call a function to handle the relation ? >> more readable
>>>sample
>>>

>>>*---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>function _Trigger_Process_Relations(_table, _type)
>>>
>>>	local Success
>>>	Success = TRUE
>>>	
>>>	local TriggerArray[1], n, i
>>>	n = 0
>>>	
>>>	do case
>>>	case !m.Success
>>>	
>>>	case !GLOBAL_TRIGGERNODE.TriggerArray_Get(m._table, m._type, @TriggerArray, @n)
>>>		Success = FALSE
>>>	
>>>	endcase
>>>	
>>>	for i = 1 to m.n
>>>		
>>>		do case
>>>		case !m.Success
>>>			exit
>>>		
>>>		case !_TriggerHistoryAdd(TriggerArray[ m.i ])
>>>			Success = FALSE
>>>			
>>>		case !eval(TriggerArray[ m.i ])
>>>			Success = FALSE
>>>		
>>>		case !NO_ERROR
>>>			Success = FALSE
>>>			
>>>		endcase
>>>		
>>>		assert (m._table == CursorGetProp('SourceName')) message 'Not on table ' + m._table
>>>
>>>	endfor
>>>	
>>>	return (m.Success and NO_ERROR)
>>>	
>>>endfunc
>>>*---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>

>>>
>>
>>Not sure I understood all these ideas. Anyway, I don't want to put too many changes. I already re-worked the original code a lot.
>
>
>Just saying to add another function to the main to put the loop in. It adds to the readability
>Just a for/next in not too many lines
>
>
>>>(4) why all that testing at the beginning ?
>>>
>>>vartype(m.tcTriggerType) = 'C'
>>>
>>
>>This piece I'm going to change slightly. But what if my code is called _ri_handler() instead of _ri_handler("UPDATE")?
>>
>>>if the trigger in the table of say customer for insert would be Trigger('CUSTOMER', 'I')
>>>then the main entry point would be
>>>
>>>__RI_Handler(tcTableName, tcTriggerType)
>>>
>>>
>>>(5) throw the code away. Write your own. And include support for compound keys. Not very difficult
>>>___________________________________________
>>
>>They are already supported indirectly.
>
>How is that ?
>
>Success,