>>All this aside, I think that the bottom line here is that AMEMBERS() is unreliable in this situation. Still, I'm very curious as to why.
>
>AMEMBERS() does not work for COM objects. But, if you access any members or non-members of a COM object programmically, you will see AMEMBERS() return those. So even of you executed object.foo and foo doesn't exist for that COM object, then AMEMBERS(array,foo) will then return an array element for foo. This is not a bug, since AMEMBERS() doesn't support COM objects, only VFP objects. If you ever see AMEMBERS() return members for a COM object, it's because those members have been already accessed programatically.

Hi Ken,

First, thanks for the input.

This has become an object (no relation to COM or otherwise:-)) of intellectual curiousity more than practical usage. From what Ed and Nancy have said, they're not accessing the object programmatically (unless the debugger counts), yet they are seeing the array populated. OTOH, David and I, following the same steps, are not getting the results they are. Even Ed and Nancy have to use slightly different methods to populate the array. Yet neither are having to access each method or property to get them into it.

FWIW, I got the same results on my Win98 box that I did under Win95, so that rules the OS out (I guess).

We (Ed and I, at least) were hoping that you could shed some light on this behavior.