George-

>My point exactly. Ken's a nice guy. Smart, too. What makes him make claims like that is beyond me.

Ken qualified his statement accurately, IMO. He said you can't use any 7.0 features and expect them to work in 6.0. As for his making the assertion that we're 100% backwards compatible, it makes perfect sense to me that he would say it when so many people in other language groups are concerned about "language stability." It was perhaps a touch over enthusiastic.

>>Now, I look at it like this. You could spend a few hours trying to figure what changed between 6 and 7 that makes your menu not work, or you could spend the time elsewhere.
>
>A few hours would have been nice. It's been a few weeks.

You spent a few weeks on trying to use a 7.0 compiled menu, as-is, with the 6.0 runtime? Nah. I expect you mean you've been working on upgrading and testing everything for several weeks.

>>Do you _have_ to be able to do this?
>
>I guess I don't *have* to do anything.

I meant do you have a requirement to be able to run 7.0 compiled code with the 6.0 runtime? That was your original point.

>I get paid by the hour to write VFP applications. I just do as instructed. They asked me to get an entire fairly large app (hundreds and hundreds of forms, reports, VCX's, programs, etc.) running in VFP7. Then they asked what was keeping me. Then they pointed to Mr. Levy's article and said it was taking too long to get up, that it *should* be 100% compatible. Bleh.

Yeah, people tend to read things too casually and then draw broad inferences. It's difficult to combat, sometimes.