>>We have the similar code in our classes, but I realized, it is not sufficient, since it doesn't check for buffered changes.
>
>Nadya,
>
>If you do a seek() or COUNT in the same table (i.e., without re-opening it), you run the risk of getting error messages, caused by the fact that validation is carried out before you actually want to save the record.

Haven't thought about it. So, I have to add some error trapping too. The problem becomes more and more complicated...

>
>The philosophy I apply is to check for changes only when the user tries to save changes. This has several advantages, specifically, you wouldn't need to worry about buffered changes.

Say, user adds several records, some with the same name. Now you can not save them, so he/she spent time in vain. This is not good.

>However, I realize that if you want to check for changes earlier this solution may not be perfect.
>
>Regards, Hilmar.

Thanks again. So basically COUNT FOR +Trapping uniqueness of index is violated error should work. I have to think about it and discuss with my colleagues. I can make changes for the particular form, but it's better to make the changes on the class level.