> If possible, please post a list of "unintuitive names" and I'll change it in
> SB7.

"Unintuitive names" was probably not the right description. It is more
a problem that the item names alphabetize in a manner that they are
sometimes difficult to locate.

It would be very helpful if your categorized groups could be collapsed
and expanded in tree list fashion. And if you ceated more categories at
the same time. There are an immense number of functions in the list to
scroll. The list would be easier to navigate if it had more groups with
fewer items per group and the groups could be collapsed. Some functions
I rarely, or never, use. Yet, I must tediously scroll past them every
time I search for a function. If they were in collapsed groups I might
do virtually no scrolling.

As to alphabetizing, I suggest you put the most descriptive word first
so that it is easier to find in an alphabetic list. For instance, the
word "handle" is essentially devoid of meaning. That is one that I
particularly have trouble associating with what I am looking for,
especially if I haven't used SB for several weeks.

Instead of "Handle String Function", I suggest "String Operations".
Instead of "Handle File Listing", I suggest "Directory Operations".
Instead of "Handle Text File ...", I suggest "File Line Operations"
You might consider grouping all of the "handle" functions under a
separate "Multifunction commands" category. These collectively contain
a multitude of functions. You might include "Get File Info" in this
group.

You might consider collecting all of the Windows functions under a
separate "Target System Functions" category:
* all Registry functions
* all Windows Service functions
* Windows environment
* Register File Operation (This one is really unintuitive - there surely
is a better name)

And so forth.

Just suggestions. You might come up with even better grouping ideas
yourself.

--
Phil Carroll
http://www.enablingsimplicity.com