Hi again, Stephen,

I think we all have been using it (them?) for a long time.

The jury is still out (as far as I'm concerned) as to whether this is a "new" or a long-standing phenomenon. I certainly lean to a "new" flavour because of the long and relaible history of the (former???) practise.

That question remains, as well as MS' response if it is "new" (by design or to be fixed).

Cheers,

Jim N

or >>Hi Stephen,
>>
>>Just for your edification, some new "facts" (in quotes because I have a suspicion - not really widely shared, I'll admit, that it is really a **change** in Rushmore behaviour) about a TAG on DELETED() is that, *most* of the time such a TAG will hurt rather than help **IF** SET DELETED is ON.
>>
>>If this was done 'by design' by the MS team in the relatively recent past, then we deserve to have been told about it. If it is a 'mistake' in VFP, then it ought to be corrected ASAP.
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>Jim N
>>
>Thanks for the heads up on that one!
>
>I've been using the deleted() tag for 9 or 10 years. And set deleted on for as long as FP has been out.
>
>Old habits die hard!
>
>Thanks.