Hi Mike,

I have a relatively large library with about 50 UDFs, but with the Document View tool that's absolutely no problem.

>>>I rarely emply either FUNCTION and PROCEDURE keywords, especially if it's a UDF in an INDEX command.
>>
>>I seldom use a UDF for an index, but if I did it, I would probably use the database stored procedures. I think that would make the index accesible, without additional commands - not sure though, whether this always works.
>>
>>But yes, an alternative is to have a separate PRG.
>>
>>>I'm afraid I'll never understand why people insist on arbitrarily grouping functions and procedures into "libraries".
>>
>>In my opinion, it can help keep things organized. For instance, one entire library might contain standard functions which are usable in different systems; another library might contain functions for a specific system I am working on.
>
>I doubt very much that anybody is grouping things together with such reasons. I've seen far too many cases where everything is grouped into a huge .PRG without any thought at all, making it just as hard to work with as a set of separate .prgs.
>
>Suppose one of the functions in the specific system is more widely useful. You'll have to decide whether to put it in the standard library or the specific library. Don't even bother. Make it it's own .PRG. That IMO should be the default behavior. To use the new UDF I don't even have to first try to remember if it's in the standard or the specific library. I already know the function name. That's all I should need to remember.