Re: Same prefixes (was Re: It's That Time Again! etc.)

[Douglas Handy <dhandy1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

>I thought I was following the discussion of the issue up to this point, but 
>now I'm lost.
>
>Whay have prefixes at all if they're going to be the same???

Because it would allow EVALC to think the subfields names were the same, thereby
enabling a more corresponding operation.  You'd still have the qualified DS
names to keep the fields distinct.  I agree munging to a common prefix is less
than ideal.

My problem stems from the fact my PF's use unique fields names, which I feared
could inihibit EVALC from matching subfield names.  If we had qualified DS all
along, my PF's would not have used unique field names.

If PREFIX() allowed *dropping* leading characters, my problem would be solved
because than I'd just be replacing those leading characters with the qualified
DS name, and the remainder of the field name would match for EVALC purposes.

I don't think I'm the only one using this type of prefix naming conventions for
PF's.

Doug