>I do not mean to sound cynical, but hey, why did I not think of the $. Silly me, I spent half an hour in help looking for "string functions", "string", "str", etc, when it obvioulsy must be the $ operator.
>
>It is easy for you foxpro pros. But for us novices, foxpro does not make it easy to find the string operators and functions. Everytime I have to do some string manipulation, it takes me forever to find the right function. In many languages there is a section of the book, or help, where they are all listed, and amazingly, they all start with something common, like, "str". Oh well.
>
>Thanks for the help and letting me vent.
>
Hi Brenda,

From what I've read in other threads, you're no longer a novice.< g >

The richness of FoxPro's command set almost goes too far. There are some who'll argue that the language needs some slimming down. There are so many things that have been left in for backward compatibility and compatibility with other (shudder) xBase dialects, that finding the function you need can be difficult. For example, do we really need both the mod operator (%) and the MOD() function?

Anyway, as Rich pointed out, there are other functions that could do the job, such as AT(). It depends on what you need to do. Additionally (and I'm being true to my signature here), foxtools has a couple of additional functions (Words() and WordNum()) that can make parsing strings a snap.