One way generators can be bad for the reasons you mentioned. However, some tools have two-way generators. So, for example, if you changed the MPR, the MPX and MPT files would be recreated, and your code changes included.

>Hi all
>
>If I'm not mistaken it was determined that code generators were a bad practice. I mean we don't generate SPRs anymore because the SCX is an object.
>
>However, given that the menu generator still exists, when one generates a menu - isn't it a fact that manually altering the resulting MPR is *really* bad practice? This must be true or there would not need to be a GENMENUX pre/post processor.
>
>I believe it is also true because if you change the MPR, you will lose those changes should you go back to the menu designer.
>
>The designer is supposed to speed and simplify laying out the menu - to a lesser degree than the screen designer.
>
>Now if that is true, why is anyone making generators at all? Is it just assumed that no one will alter the resulting code?
>
>Here's the quandry. If someone did alter an SPR significantly - apparently because they didn't know enough about the screen builder or GENSCRNX would you take the manual changes and plug them into the screen builder so further work could proceed or make more manual changes - knowing how hard they will be to do in a really complex screen?
>
>Thanks!