Anyone else having their sanity chipped away by repeatedly writing a bug into code by using "NOT Rec.ISEMPTY" incorrectly? ISEMPTY does exactly what it says, and in a timely manner, but somehow just feels like it goes against the whole positive naming convention.
I doubt there will be much force behind any attempt to have an HASRECORDS or like named function added, but it really would keep things consistent seeing as every devloper I meet makes the same mistake on occasion, and it sits there in code as the brain of every developer happily filters the ISEMPTY line out when they look at the logic.