>>Or function behaves the way it suppouse to. :)
>
>I basically agree with you here, and consider the new behavior a bug. One reason I use transform() is because I expect it to trim unneeded zeroes. This has worked so far, and the bug in VFP 6 hasn't appeared yet in my applications. (I still use VFP 6.)

Exatly my point! It was my understanding that TRANSFORM() w/o second parameter was introduced to produce "minimal" representation for any data type.