Andrus,

Colin brought this thread to my attention. Pleae reply e-mail if you have steps to repro, as I do not check UT frequently.

To answer your question, of course we tested binding FRXOUTPUT.PRG into an EXE. We tried as many different scenarios as possible, and also recommended to beta testers that they make a oarticular point of doing this.

Try different scenarios as I might within an EXE, calling from object methods, in procedure files, separate PRGs, procedures in separate PRGs, I can't reproduce what you're talking about. I can't make SYS(16,0) report the procedure name as you state it does. That's what SYS(16) is supposed to do with no second argument.

It is possible you have mis-diagnosed your problem. It is also possible that you've found a bug, whether you've diagnosed the problem correctly or not <s>.

You say that you bound in all the components. Did you do so following the directions in the docs (How to: Specify and Distribute Report Output Application Components), or did you do it manually? Are you using a custom outputconfig.dbf, or the built-in one? In the former case, is the dbf external or internal? Do your REPORT FORM commands use SET("REPORTB") or OBJECT TYPE syntax, or are you calling DO (_REPORTOUTPUT) WITH , ox manually? Are there multiple EXEs or APPs involved (I know that REPORTOUTPUT.APP is not being used, but you could still be using subsidiary modules)?

Please tell me exactly what your situation is, if necessary zip and e-mail me the full project -- including of course the outputconfig.dbf if you are using one.

As a comment regarding coding "style" and intentions, from the lines of code you posted, this is the RTM version of FRXOUTPUT.PRG. There have been changes in SP1 in this program -- and in fact I know of one bug in the public SP1 beta version that has since been fixed -- and there will doubtless be more in Sedna. However this particular behavior (the use of SYS(16,0)) has not changed.

If there is really something wrong with it that we haven't picked up, in spite of our best efforts to test and follow through on this, we certainly do want to hear about it.

Thank you in advance for your help, and for a careful and complete reply.

>L<