>>...so we'll chalk it up to some bug in VFP9SP1.
>
>We're trying to tell you (Doug and I) that it's not a bug in VFP9. Rather the
>previous versions of VFP didn't catch this problem. It is an enhancement.


I don't see how that is possible. The index can be created. It can exist. It is only on the update when it throws the error. The fact that it can be created at all suggests that if this is a new lock-down feature, it is at the very least not properly implemented in VFP9SP1, which indicates it is a bug. And if it is not a new lock-down feature, then it is still a bug.

How is it not a bug?