>>
>>Just want to point that
>>
>>DO (cProcName)
>>
>>is faster and safer.
>>
>>Also, although I agree that this is a better approach than the DO CASE, I'm still concerned about the idea of several hundred similar procedures to maintain. Is there really no commonality that would let you cut this down to a few procedures accepting parameters?
>>
>
>Thank you for your input. I have since changed the approach and now working on storing the code in a memo of a table.

That's no better than having separate PRGS. In fact each memo will have to be compiled in some way each time, where the .FXPs won't be compiled on the fly.