>>>Cindy,
>>>
>>> I guess, you're right. This is very important question, so keep it for DevCon, please.
>>
>>I've tested this with up to 21 items in the IN () statement without problem. However, in my test, the length of each item in the list matched the width of the field. Note that if the length of the field is wider than the items in the list and ANSI is set to ON the shorter items are padded with spaces. This will cause something like "CHI" in the list of items not to return a value for "CHICAGO" in the city field.
>
>
> George,
>
> Try to test with 25 items. You will get an error message... I tested with the table, which has town (code) 4 character. Firstly I opened this table and wrote down couple of codes (guess, I could print it instead...), then I wrote the select statement in command window. I listed 13 items, but I got only 11 records. Anyway, I continued appending the list, and then I added 25th item, it gave me an error... I tested with VFP table.

Nadya,

You've just hit the limit is all. It isn't a bug. If you're willing to sacrifice compatibility with ANSI standard SQL, store the list items in an array, and use ASCAN() > 0 to achieve the same results.