Hi Jim,

>In fact the term "reentrant" has some very specific qualifications, but alas I can only express them in terms of "mainframe" programming and I know from experience (of the near bitter variety) that there are those here who take umbrage with such, so I shall desist.
>
>However, the nature of the response bring two things up for discussion:
>
>1) the "appropriation" of terms, quite probably by those who do not know better, which already have an "accepted" definition, to mean something totally different!
>I will take this opportunity to tell Ned that what he describes is NOTHING like real reentrancy. His re-directing a request to start an application which is already running to the instance already running might best be described as 'single-instance' or 'no multiple instances' or something like that (these assuming that they are *not* existingly-defined terms.
>
You are correct. I did not understand the distinction between recursion and reentrancy. Thanks to your definition I now know that the term I was looking for is reentrancy, that is that we had methods being invoked while they were still in the call stack. This was not the purpose of my original post. I simply used it to illustrate the fact that although VFP is single threaded, it can be interrupted, and this will sometimes need to be addressed(Read the first reply to my post).

In any case thank you for correcting my sloppy use of terminology. It is of course critical that a technical discourse use the accepted terms. I will keep this definition in mind in the future.

Ned