Hi Walter,

SNIP
>
>Of course i've got to rethink my wishes, but at first sight it seems great.
>

That's the beauty and advantage of having a place to DISCUSS ideas like this one you started!

Personally, I've gotten used to this DELETED impelemntation in VFP (xBase generally) and I became comfortable a long time ago with running with DELETED OFF and always coding for the eventuality of a deleted record. BUT. . . that does still take more code, more cycles and, worst of all, is a tough concept for novices and a sometime "hooker" for even a pro.
Enhancing VFP's implementation to permit an option that lets DELETED records and "live" record access act as if the DELETED records are not there would greatly simplify life all around, I feel.
And there certainly is the case today where enough programmers have accommodated the traditional handling, even to positive advantage sometimes, that there is no doubt that it must continue to be available.

Finally, I've got to believe that installing the NULL capability into VFP was a LOT more troublesome all around that adding this would be.

Cheers,

Jim N


>>Being at the table level would remove any possible conflict from program to program in apps.
>
>>Just an idea
>
>Thanks, for the thinking....
>
>Walter,