Hiya Rich ---

>
>Even beyond what you say here, I've always thought it was silly that there was a setting you had to set to allow multiple records to be locked, ever. Back in 2.6 I sort of rolled my own transaction wrappers a few times. Where a user wanted to make a cascading change, I'd lock the parent and all children first. If I got all the locks, I'd commit the changes, otherwise no. Knowing I may want to do this at any time, and seeing no reason to ever have MULTILOCKS off, SET MULTILOCKS ON has been part of my standard startup prg for a long time.
>

My point exactly.

>Hey, Fox development team, why is there such a thing as MULTILOCKS=OFF?
>
>Actually, I can guess. Since the possibility of MULTILOCKS ON didn't come along until what, 2.0? 1.02?

I don't recall seeing it until VFP but I could be wrong.

>There *may* have been some programmers who wrote code which relied on locking a different record to release the current lock, and when MULTILOCKS came along, they'd be leaving records locked which they expected to be unlocked...

That's a doggone good point. Maybe....hmmm....