>>FIND THE RIGHT WAY TO DO STUFF AND ONLY DO IT! :)
>
>All right, All right, All Right! :)
>
>However, note that in this case we are talking about
>create cursor command and resulting memory cursor. Reusing it again with different alias is not likely an option. As soon as you close it; poof ... it is out of picture (memory) for good.
>
>Is this what you presented here only 'damage' that can happen or it can also
>burn toaster in adjacent room ?? :))
>Just kiddin' , but now real question;
>
>Is there any damage that can be caused to index key itself if field name is
>included when creating it? I belive that index created on a temp cursor this way is still healty;
>or I am mistaken ?

I don't think there is *anything* "healthy" about indexes built with included aliases. The fact that you'd have one in one case, but not in other cases is very very bad. Too many programmers IMO are not thinking about the advantages of "fewer" construction technique. Things should be done the same way everytime so it becomes second nature. Deviating from that standard approach should be done only after exacting analysis.

The only way I'd ever include the alias is if I built an index across two related tables. Of course I don't advise that either. Very rare :) I'd use SQL and produce a single cursor in that case.