>>>Even with the latest service packs applied, I'm still seeing
>>>weird C5 errors. Most recently I've gotten it when doing a
>>>STRTRAN() on a variable assigned from WORDNUM(). I coded
>>>it, but in scanning FoxForum, UT, VFUG, and MicroSoft, I'm
>>>seeing more weird combination of things that cause C5 errors
>>>with VFP6 than ever before.
>>>
>>>I've see some real benefits in VFP6, yet at the same time I'm
>>>growing less and less confident about deploying apps developed
>>>in VFP6 than I ever was with VFP5.
>>>
>>>At this point for me the benefits still outweigh the costs, but
>>>the costs are certainly racking up quickly. Where are you all
>>>on this question?
>>>
>>> ...kt
>>
>>Keith,
>>
>>How about posting some of these?
>
>Hey George,
>
>I was off fighting other fires (I know you can't
>relate to that :-) In any event, it was really
>more of a general question based on a recent
>problem that I'm having and the seeming C5
>epidemic out there.
>
>Having read a number of things at some of the
>sites mentioned in my previous post, it seems
>that there are still quite a few things which
>cause it (most of which seem to be related to
>OO or COM features).
>
>From your responses I gather that you're either
>not having any such problems, or you are still
>pretty confident about deploying even with the
>potential of encountering them. Is that accurate?

Yes, I'm confident. I've found 6.0 to be more stable than any of its predecessors. I've run into the C...5 problem too, but in each case I was always able to trace it back to the programmer (me) not VFP. Were there issues in this regard? Yes, but SP3 seems to have address the vast majority.

One of the things that I would urge you to do is post the code. That way one of two things will happen. If it's something that you're doing, then perhaps the folks here can help. If it is a real issue then Microsoft knows and can address it. The fact that Robert Green replied should be an indicator as to how serious they feel about it.

Regards,