>>A follow-up to my original posting:
>>
>>Naomi suggested Thread #1297487 Message #1297518 (by Fred Taylor). Other people had reported similar problem.
>>
>>This appears to be a bug in VFP. (I am always suspicious when I conclude that the problem is in VFP rather than in my own code. But here goes.)
>>
>>There appears to be some kind of interference between a listbox on one page of a pageframe with a listbox in the same screen position on another page in the same pageframe. My solution: in the Init method of one of the pages, move the listbox off the form, i.e. Left = -1000. In the activate method of that page, move it back to its original position. In the deactivate method of that page, move it back to Left = -1000. I'll refer to the listbox that I'm moving as the "offending" listbox. Problem solved?
>>
>>Yes, until I added another page to the pageframe and put a listbox in the same place. Problem returned. Only this time, moving the "offending" listbox off the page in the Init and Deactivate methods and back onto the page in the Activate method didn't solve the problem. What did solve the problem was to move the offending listbox out of the way at design time, in the form designer, and also in the deactivate method of the page. Moving it back into position in the page Activate method. Problem solved?
>>
>>Well, almost. I started wondering how far I had to move the listbox to make the problem go away. If I changed the Left position of the listbox in its container from 22 to 30, the problem went away. Well almost.... what I found was that when I moved the "offending" listbox from left = 22 to 30, and then tested the listbox in the other page, clicking on any of the items in the target list worked as long as I clicked near the left edge of the listbox (maybe the first 5 or 6 characters). If I went further right, it was unresponsive. Move the "offending" listbox a little more to the right makes a more of the right side of the target listbox responsive.
>>
>>Anyone have any ideas about what is really go on here?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Jim
>
>I think you identified this behavior as a bug correctly. I doubt it would be ever fixed, so your workarounds may be as good as possible,

Naomi,

Thanks for your feedback. I'm surprised that there has not been more discussion of this. It is actually quite easy to recreate. I keep doing it (unintentially of course).

Jim