|
From: Francesc A. <fa...@ca...> - 2006-02-13 09:02:11
|
El dg 12 de 02 del 2006 a les 09:02 +0000, en/na N. Volbers va escriure: > I still don't understand the reason for keeping two different names.=20 > IMHO it adds some extra complexity and might be a potential source for=20 > errors. If I keep an extra title in the array, then I think I should be=20 > allowed to name it whatever I want. If this is not the case, then I=20 > would be better off to just have unique field names and keep my extra=20 > information about the fields in a separate dictionary with the field=20 > names as keys and the extra information as value. This is my current=20 > approach, which works quite well; unfortunately the extra information is=20 > not saved in the array itself. Yes. I agree that accessing fields by both name and title might become a common source of confusion. So, in order to avoid problems in the future, I wouldn't let the users to access the fields by title. >=20 > Is anybody actually using both names and titles? Not me. --=20 >0,0< Francesc Altet http://www.carabos.com/ V V C=E1rabos Coop. V. Enjoy Data "-" |