> > > >I don't think this is a "bug", but rather I *believe* that it is the > "standard" Xbase way of dealing with "scope". > >In ordinary folks terms. . . 'if the current work area is at eof(), then > any other work area is also assumed to be at eof()'. > > > > If it walks like a duck... > > >I think it was VFP 3 which introduced the "IN" clause to many of the > commands, essentially allowing us to address each relevant work area > specifically, thus overcoming the assumption which is inherent otherwise. > > QUACK!!!! ==Carl