>>Yes, I know about TABLEUPDATE(). My point was that the deletes in the parent and child tables should occur "simultaneously." There should be no need to move the record pointer.
>
>As far as table health is concerned, there is no such need.
>
>It's just that Fox keeps sitting on the deleted record. You may issue a "locate rest" or some such command (even "skip 0" may work, haven't tried in a long time) if you want to make sure you're sitting on a valid record. Also, if you deleted the last record, you may be sitting on eof(), and you know several things which don't work in such a situation.

I agree it should be done. Maybe I misunderstood Naomi to mean moving the record pointer is necessary for the delete to work.