In my opinion I don't want or need error codes for UDFs. I want or assume that the code is solid enough to work on 99% of all of my systems from the get go. If I only have 5 machines out of 5,000 having a problem with the code, I would blame those 5 machines and not the code. If on the other hand I am using the error code as a part of the decision process of the script, then it may be a different matter.

I would only want or need error codes typically to help me track down why my UDF is not working, or for debugging someone else’s code.

I don't disagree with the idea of "advanced" programmers wanting a "standard". I agree that one should be used by those so inclined, as it can be helpful. However, to attempt to coerce or indicate that a UDF is not valid or not good because it either does not have error routines built-in or because it does not conform to a "standard" is also wrong in my opinion. KiXtart is a logon script first and foremost. Yes, we can and do have it do so much more now days... but a simple/complex UDF that is written well and performs well should not need to be debugged by other members that download the code and use it.

At the risk of sounding off base, (in my opinion again - from most of the posting I see, I would have to say there "appear" to be less then a dozen "regularly posting" members that I would put in this ADVANCED PROGRAMMER category...of which I do not include myself). I would say that the vast majority of us are at varying degrees of understanding "advanced" code samples, and we USE it more so then CREATE it.

Howard, if I'm missing the boat here please let me know. Maybe you're meaning or wanting something else based on your original question then what I'm replying with. It's late and maybe I'm just not reading the thread and request properly.