George and Jim,

I have followed this thread with interest ( at least considering the tech issues :-) ). I am certainly no arbiter and dont't wish to be but I am detecting some ( obvious ) frustration from both of you regarding this issue.

In the interest of understanding and good will I would like to suggest that part of the difficulty here is in defining what a "bug" is. My understanding is that from your ( Geroge ), David F. and Cristof's perspective there is no bug because VFP7 is doing what the designers intended by rebalancing the B-Tree and thus incurring a larger index. I believe Jim's perspective is that since the documentation does not explicitly reference this behavior, it means it is a "bug", at least from the dicumentation perspective. Now whether it actually is a "bug", I don't know, might depend on your definition, but obviously VFP7 is doing something different than previous versions. So if we could clarify how the parties involved are defining a "bug" so there is mutual understanding of the positions, even if it is to "agree to disagree", and then allow the VFP designers to decide the "bug-ness" of the issue ( or if they even want to look at it ) and whether they feel they want to address or not address it, hopefully we could resolve the "difficulty" of the issue and remain friends. :-)

Again, I generally try to stay out of arguments on the UT, and I realize that healthy debate is good since many various problems can be resolved through exchange and debate of different perspectives, and I am not trying to "butt in" here but I would like to see resolution for the sake of maintaining good and also profitable relationships, particularly since I know both of you and respect you.

Respectfully,
Bill

>>>So David Frankenbach's explanation on Wiki doesn't matter to you. Christof Lange's explanation there too doesn't matter either. Of course, if you don't bother to read them, you wouldn't know. David (in number 6 and 7) do exactly what you described and it doesn't happen the way you present it. And you have the audacity to still say that this is a bug.
>>
>>Do you have trouble reading, George? - and this is not a dig, but a serious question. DavidF's #6 and #7 do NOT do exactly what I describe at all!!! Did you not read DavidF's note at the top that he had NOT, in any of the examples given, addressed the bloat caused by insertions and that he plans to do so in the near future?????
>>Once more, this time with feeling: my bug report has NOTHING to do with deleted TAG bloat and has ONLY to do with 'insertion bloat' (to use DavidF's nomenclature). I hope it is clear THIS TIME. And I hope you will re-read the thread starting message, which relates this clearly if you care to read the WHOLE thing. Simple for all but those who will not see.
>
>Then you obviously didn't read Christof's explanation on why this is happening and, therefore, why there's no bug. He explains what's going on in detail and, by inference, the reason that REINDEX after insertions doesn't make the CDX smaller. In short the B+Tree is re-balanced and more pages allocated. There isn't a bug here, the only thing is, you won't admit it.
>
>>>
>>>>>No, I won't even if you do.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm expressing my opinion, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me not to do so. If you don't like it, too bad. I respect others rights to theirs, and, if someone, doesn't respect mine, I have no use them. For all I care, you can take a long hike on a short pier.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, children, George is entitled to his opinion. I think I have the "right" to express mine too. When someone goes around calling people a danger/threat to the community, I take exception, especially having been told the same thing by the same person myself (which I let go then).
>>>
>>>>In other words, expressing opinions cuts both ways. Care to join me on that pier walk???
>>>
>>>You go first!
>>>
>>>Shouting "Bug!" continuously at a time when people are trying to get others to upgrade to 7.0 because it's more stable than its predecessors is counter-productive. I liken it to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. You have a right to do by your rights of free speech. If you do, you have all the morality of slug.
>>
>>George grabs the high ground, failing to realize that he's standing in a deep valley. I am not inclined to call people names or to label them in negative ways, especially when they do such a handsome job at it all by their lonesome.
>>
>You know, Jim, I've always made it a policy not to say things on-line that I wouldn't say to someone's face. Further, where I'm from, if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, violence will follow.
>
>First, you don't know me from Adam's house cat.
>
>Second, I contribute positively through my articles, my posts, my free code available, and my FAQs. Just about all I see from you is negative. I didn't not call you a name. I said that anyone who would yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when none existed had all the morality of a slug. I likened it to crying "Bug!" all the time when none existed. I've no objection to people reporting bugs here. What I do object to is people failing to have the guts to stand up and admit they're wrong.
>
>Third, I don't think you've got a clue here. You don't know up from down. I may be standing in a "deep valley", but I've still got to look down to see you.
>
>Have a nice day,