Double D,
>>
>>You know, as a programmer, I was trained, like I’m sure you and others were, to always consider the worst-case scenario in our designs. It occurs to me that perhaps, since I presented the “best-case” that I should also consider the worst-case.
>>
>>The worst-case is that auto-increment isn’t the “tip of the iceberg”. What does this mean? It moves VFP’s feature set closer to SQL Server’s. This isn’t just a good thing; this is a great thing. By including features from SQL Server, you diminish the differences between an ISAM based RDBMS and a set based one. This certainly allows for easier ports.
>>
>>By moving VFP closer to SQL Server, one other thing is accomplished: Potential marketing strategies. Why not put Fox “back in the box”? Only this time the box is with SQL Server rather than the VS box. Or how about a coupon in the box for VFP at a reduced rate? Campaigns based on a slogan like: “Visual FoxPro, the best tool for creating SQL Server Applications!” Why? < All together now folks > “Nothing runs like a Fox!”
>>
>>You’re right; one day VFP will “go the way of all flesh”. I just happen to believe that it isn't happening anytime soon.
>>

>
>Exactly! I remember Ricardo's response at one point in the past when someone made the VFP<-->SQL connection. Personally I would agree with you and suggest that this is where we'll find a lot of our future.

Yeppers.

>Now if we could just get everyone else to be as smart as we are, huh?
>
><bg>

Now that's a scary thought!< vvvbg >