>>Hi Peter
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>A colleague has since long a UDF named ISTR() that is used in many places. Since vfp9 there is a new function named ISTRANSACTABLE() that can also be shortened to ISTR(). The UDF is no longer found.
>>>
>>>Is there any way of dealing with this situation other that going through the tedious and dangerous process of searching and replacing all occurences of the UDF?
>>
>>That's so unfortunate. You could try a naming convention to reduce the chance of that, but let's say you used PVUDF. Microsoft could have added a PVUD function at any time. That's the problem with conventions, everybody in Microsoft and outside would have to follow them. Sure. Right. :)
>>
>>Better to do the search and replace. Only name it more descriptively. What does ISTR do now?
>
>I'm not sure, but I presume it returns an integer as a string.
>
>It indeed is a pity the way MS handles this. Several solutions come to mind.
>
>First, we should have the oportunity to #include global #defines. Why do we have to specify the constants for each and every program, form and class?! Why not the possibility to (also) specify a single include file that is valid for all stuff in the project?!
>
>Second, we might be given the opportunity to intercept the system function call and redirect to a UDF. Like what was done in Clipper. The use of ISTR() could then be redirected, while the use of a longer string ( e.g. ISTRA() ) could still lead to use of the sytem function. Suppose we are allowed to create a simple ISTR_ACCESS(), that might be the trigger for vfp to allow the user to intercept usages of ISTR().
>
>Any way, we need the vfpteam in this. Could be a wish for vfp10 or whatever it is called.

I doubt you'll get that wish. ;)