>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.
>
>Walter,

Hi Walter,

SYS(3054) shows no optimization for both cases.