Ahhh, maybe I finally get it!!! Suggestions about documentation improvements are viewed as flame-retardants rather than meaningful suggestions!

No wonder MS leaves the documentation in such a poor state despite the relentless repetitions of similar problems common the VFP forums. I know that knowing the "traps" is the hallmark of a "seasoned" VFP programmer, but a well documented language would highlight such "traps" clearly. Then so many of the learners would stick with the language rather than give up becuase it is 'too complicated' or 'doesn't do what it says it does'.

I must disagree that "the docs are great, but". They are barely adequate and it takes places like this to do the rest of the job. Since 90+% of FP/VFP programmers do not frequent places like this, that leaves an awful lot of people in the dark.

Regards,

Jim N

>Hi Jim,
>
>>First let me observe that no one who responded seemed to have picked up on the "B" option you had, namely B) A nice big blurb in the docs under _pageno for how to achive page#/tota pages in your VFP report. It seems to be a no-no to even suggest that VFP's documentation could use some improvement. Even when, as you cite (and which we all know happens to countless other "features" requiring relentlessly repeated questions) it comes up frequently.
>
>Parden me for jumping in: Quite right, but the point of "B" is a little less surface. Some members, in their attempts to make VFP better, suggests things that may already exist in the system. And then they get many many emails saying you can. So I think choice "B" was just a safegaurd agains "semi-flames".
>
>Also, whats wrong with saying: "You know, we might be a little more producive if the documentation read...". The VFP docs are great, but nothings perfect.