>Ken,
>
>>thats great, thanks, would be good if there was a table showing the defaults rather than having to read through each set command but still this is a great help.
>
>I disagree, because that wouldd duplicate information. Then there's a chance that one place would be updated without the other.

In these days of electronic "documenatation" it surely is possible to "link" fields so that changes in 1 area can be reflected in other relevant areas. Even if requiring manual review.
This ideas that duplicate information may not be updated in all places is indeed the excuse for such a practise, but this is decidedly more for the convenience of the document maintainers than for the USERS of such documents.

VFP documentation writers were obviously big practitioners of this.