Sylvain,

I believe that I read the reply correctly. I even have the Hacker's Guide for 6.0 right here (as I believe I also said (first line of *my* response)).

My point was, and perhapos my wording left something to be desired, that the V3 Hacker's Guide gave MS a roadmap of many many deficiencies, unclarities and bugs yet there is virtually no evidence that they have incorporated *any* of those in documentation released long after that publication hit the shelves.

If MS were truly aiming to improve things, much of that content as well as 'clarifications' by MS in the form of KB Articles (generally answered 'working as designed' but failing to adequately communicate the 'design' in the first place) as well as repetitively asked questions on VFP forums would have been addressed and I wouldn't need to rant as I do.

Jim N

PS The docs serve most long-term VFPers just fine, but MS claims to be working at getting novices into VFP yet the docs are substantially the same as they were at VFP 3. Novices toss VFP aside and move on to something else when they find they cannot make the product operate asw documented, and the grave omissions/unclarities make this the case.

>Jim, take the time to read the reply. The Hacker's Guide for Visual FoxPro 6.0 is out. That's a new version, not a 3 year old version.
>
>>I have the new Hacker's Guide sitting right here, thank you.
>>
>>My point was that it documents bugs and "features" of VFP and tht the 3.0 version has been in print for about 3 years now.
>>A golden opportunity for the VFP team to do fixups and amend/clarify documentation, but with little evidence that *any* of it was incorporated!
>>
>>I see this, and failure to incorporate KB articles or VFP Site repetetively asked questions (obviously suggesting inclarity in the docs) as evidence that they don't really care about their documentation.
>>
>>As to your prior point about FLUSH being an old command:
>>FLUSH saved my bacon many many times in the days before transactions and such. Many 'old timers' (going back to FP 2, etc) have similar experience.
>>Now VFP introduces buffering and TableUpdate and other things, but does NOT make any amendments to the FLUSH command to state how it might (or might not) operate when those features are employed.
>>So you can't blame us for assuming that it just *might* work just fine with these things.
>>All they had to do was to tell us how it interracted with the new stuff. Is that really too much to ask?