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
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only