>Never mind ... sort of.
>
>I went back and re-checked the obvious, and I hadn't really fixed the fact that the second UDF moved the record pointer in the primary table, and issued an unlock command with it selected. I fixed that, and the error went away.
>
>I'm still confused though. "Record not locked?" "Record locked?" We're talking about a table buffer here, isn't it a cursor VFP's created in my workstation's memory? Don't I have "exclusive" use of it? Why is there a question of locking a record in the cursor before the TABLEUPDATE command?
>
>Still confused, but hey, the program works.
>
>Rich.

Optimistic buffering allows many different users on many different workstations access to the same table. And when you are getting ready to update the record(s) it must attempt at that time to get the record lock to prevent other users from updating at the same time. You are locking the actual data. You are not opening the table exclusively.

Dan