>>>>I had a strange occurrence with a program I wrote in 2.6 and it's >>>>memory variable handling in VFP5. >>>> >>>>I assigned a memory variable a name that was the same as a field name >>>>so I could do a SEEK with it. (jobref) >>>> >>>>Then assigned it a value with another memory variable jobref=m.ljob >>>>In 2.6 this worked fine in VFP5 I had to make jobref - m.jobref >>>>in order for the value to be passed to it from m.ljob. >>> >>>It's strange that this code has been working as expected in FP W2.6 It >> >>It worked fine in the DOS only VFP5 did it act strange. >> >>>didn't in FP 2.x DOS. >>>Maybe problem is, you were not at the same work area as the table that >>>contains this field in 2.6. >>>In all versions (from Foxbase 2.1 to VFP 5 as far as I worked) this >>>behaviour is same. Field variables takes precedence over mem var. >>>select tcNames >>>? FirstName && Field value is displayed >>>Firstname = "John" >>>? FirstName && Field value is displayed again >>>? m.FirstName && "John" is displayed >>>select 0 >>>? FirstName && "John" is displayed >>>? m.FirstName && "John" is displayed >>>? tcNames.FirstName && Field value is displayed >>> >>>>I also had a different problem with this exact code and VFP 5 >>>>reported that I needed a valid if then else statement: >>>> >>>>STORE 1 to reply >>>> >>>>@ 1,1 2 GET reply FUNCTION *H \>>>READ CYCLE >>>> >>>>IF reply=1 >>>> >>>>(program that worked fine before the IF ENDIF) >>>> >>>>ENDIF >>>> >>>>I don't understand the new behavior. Can someone explain it to me? >>> >>>This code should exactly work without any error. I think, code prior to >>>*if* or inside *if...endif* is erronous (Check syntax, mismatches, >commas >>>etc) >>>Cetin >> >>I thougt of the syntax problem for comma but it I commneted the >>lines out all workd fine. >> >>I won't rule out my own error but it does seems strange to have >>either of these things happen. >> >>Open to any more suggestions. > >What's the scope of the variable? > >Simon > > > jobref is 5 place character private variable (not declared as Public) reply was a number also private (not declared as Public)