>>But now with VFP 5.0, IN has 2 uses... it supports the above syntax to limit a field to a hardcoded value set, and to define a subquery to supply a set of values(like you and Ed showed me how to use). Personally, I tend to think in 2.6 mode since I still spend most of my day supporting it. This is why it hadnt occured to me to try using IN when in need of a subquery until you & Ed mentioned it.
>
>You can do the same in 2.6. Ie IN (subquery) :)) So, no difference here.
>
>Vlad

hmmmmm..... I couldnt get IN (subquery) to work in 2.6 and couldnt find documentation on it. I'll try again, thanks for the tip Vlad & Dragan