>Actually, having been exposed to too many people's "intuitive" - which I call arbitrary aggregations - I always struggle to remember what library the code is in, when I know exactly the name of the function. All I'm doing is operating with prgs exactly the way VFP's own native functions do.

You need to use a source code documenting tool, or write a simple one that'll take the various procedures / functions within each PRG and prepend them as comments at the top so you can see exactly what's in each file if you ever don't know. You can also aggregate that information into a single location which conveys it for you if you need. Or you can do what we often do, use a small prefix for the functions to indicate their source.

There are ways of addressing what you see of shortcomings without the need to have 300 separate PRG files sitting in a project file. I would actually consider that design to be a poor design.

I again reiterate to VFP developers in general ... having so many separate PRG files is insane for a developer. I cannot even imagine that people truly desire it. It's one of the most backwards ideas I've read about in VFP programming in my entire life. And yes I am serious.

FWIW, I used to write functions in separate PRG files. It was in the 1980s with Multi-user FoxBASE+ when I first came to XBASE. But once I discovered procedures and functions ... I never looked back. And never will. :-) Truly amazing to me that people would seriously advocate such a thing.