The repeat region relations that we use were written probably over 10 years ago, well before I got here. For the vast majority of dwgs we use, no modification is ever needed from the latest BOM relation version. We are big enough though where requirements change (for example P/N requirements slightly change to accommodate expanding product lines) and we need to figure out how to do the new scenario. In the past 5 years I have worked at my current company, the general relation has probably changed only about 6-10 times (although I have done other types of edits *more*, although still not very, frequently).
The relation is long enough where new changes have to be in very specific areas for it to work while not breaking something else. I have taken programing in college but I am not a programmer, nor do I have an affinity to or desire for it so when I have to change it, it often takes a fair amount of time to figure it out.
Recently we found one of the changes we made broke another part of the relation which is causing problems. This is why it is fresh on my mind. I still have not found out why it is broken but did quick fix to that persons BOM just to make it work (deleted the parts added months prior...thankfully we keep these records!). The problem is whenever I have to work on these relations, they are very painful to figure out what is going on from another persons design, and something I don't work on every day.
Yea, I understand that the way the language is used is different in the different areas but a language should be diverse enough to accommodate that...Fundamentally the same language is used for poetry, history, math, and Engineering, although the vocabulary does vary. On the user level the difference between the different programming areas of Creo should overlap as much as possible. I find it hard to excuse something as simple as making a comment has different syntax in different areas of the same program that the same user is expected to know and manipulate.