Larry and Carl,

That's fine with me.

I will do my best to stay out of your threads from now on.

Jim N

>> >
>> >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