I'm not sure why you're not getting an error when you try to stuff 10 into a single digit field. I would expect a "Numeric overflow" error, but I don't get an error either. IAC, I do get .F. for both llOtherUser and llThisUser, which is what I'd expect.

>I try to use an update conflict logic as described in
>
>Multi-user and Data Buffering Issues (20K) at
>
>www.stonefield.com/pub/buffer.zip
>
>This article recommends to use oldval() and curval() do dedect data changes.
>However, in case of field overflow, this code wrongly reports that data
>is changed.
>In the following sample code, both llOtherUser and llThisUser fields are .T.
>How to fix Doug's code ?
>Why an VFP error does not occur in this code ? Is this a VFP bug?
>
>

>close all
>set multilocks on
>create table test ( test n(1) )
>* Why an error does not occur on next line ?
>insert into test values (10)
>use in test
>use test
>cursorsetprop( 'buffering', 5 )
>lcField      = field(1)
>llOtherUser  = oldval(lcField)   <> curval(lcField)
>llThisUser   = evaluate(lcField) <> oldval(lcField)
>* Why llOtherUser and llThisUser are both .T. ?
>