>>Nick,
>>
>>>>at least look semi-sane and extensible? (INLIST() can only have up to 24 values, it is not optimizable, but it's infinitely better than the original)
>>
>>>Or:
>>>
>>>IIF(alltrim(t.transs) $ "~CS~DV~L~R~RC~RD~V~ST~OP~", 1, -1)
>>>this one is not limited to 24 values.
>>>
>>>(You may use IIF("~" + alltrim(t.transs) + "~" $... so it does not mix up R and RC and RD codes). You would not need alltrim() if all codes could be 2 char in length (along with the code field).
>>
>>your solution is not optimizable, INLIST is (As opposed as Ed suggested), so INLIST would be prefferable.
>>
>
>Or do it the way I came up with so it's readable, optimizable, extensible and not limited to 24 items.

I agree this is probably the best way, but I think it could have a performance penalty because now you have to deal with more than 1 table.

Walter,