>Fred,
>
>I sit semi-corrected *g*. I was going on the admonition of office here about never doing it, usually I don't have to worry because I don't do any 2.x stuff anymore. I just tested it myself and adding a C field to a 2.x table from VFP did not make it unuseable back in 2.x.
>
>But, adding a MEMO field to the table in VFP does hose it because of the change from N10 -> integer for the memo pointers.
>
>So it's not just new field types that can cause problems.
>
>I think the general principal holds, if it's a 2.x table do the table maintenance in 2.6 not VFP.
>

For safety's sake, you probably are correct, best to do it in 2.6. I guess I've never had to add a memo field. Well, I just tried that, too, and it keeps them as the old 2.6 memo fields, even if you're adding the first memo field to the structure. The header must tell it to use the old 10 byte format, not the new 4 byte one. So now you are semi-semi corrected. :)


>>Not true, David. If you start out with a 2.6 table, MODIFY STRUCTURE in VFP6, as long as you DO NOT put anything VFP specific like DATETIME/CURRENCY/etc fields in it, you can still use the table in 2.6 with no problems.