Hi Steve,

First, my deepest sympathy... you had an app that was working nicely with buffering and the boss didn't like it. He wanted SCATTER/GATHER. So you came to the UT and learned how to use SCATTER...NAME... to work around that. As you no doubt remember, you had trouble with name "collisions" that the NAME clause allowed you to solve. He didn't like the NAME clause and now want you to do it "the good old fashioned way".

As you know, you CANNOT follow his instructions and succeed - you will be back to collisions of field/memvar names. You will be able to use SCATTER on one but will have to do explicit field-to-memvar reassignments on others where field names are similar.

I see two options, really:

1) have a frank discussion with him and get the situation corrected (letting you use "modern" techniques designed to improve your productivity *and* delver more reliable applications);

2) Tell HIM to do the programming as you walk out the door looking for another job.

Good luck,

JimN

>Hi Vlad,
>
>I wish I could tell this to my leader. I can't tell this to my leader. Whenever I get help on UT and share it with my leader he wants my head on a silver platter. Go figure...
>
>I've had my head chopped off on several occasions and don't cherish the thought. As John Koziol suggested, I am programming in Visual FoxPro 2.6. LOL!
>
>I always try to do the right thing the best way possible. And the UT is my favorite resource in times of trouble. I just don't share this stuff with my leader. I learned my lesson to keep my mouth shut.
>
>I don't know what my leader has against the UT. It makes it tough to get things done sometimes. Long live the UT!