>Regardless, it would be uncomplicated, even if to do so took simply leaving the record's 'space' in a specific way to signify that it is fully ignoreable by all VFP processes pending a PACK or some new more efficient operation to handle just those. Anyone who today stores a record number in a record does not do PACKs anyway, that's for sure.
>
>I think it's wish #101 that alludes to a capability giving a result similar to what I'm getting at here.
>
>cheers
The way I had it in mind, the 1000-record table would be reduced to 999 records, record #1000 would be stored somewhere else, and the space for record #1000 would effectively be available. With the situation Sergey pointed out, the user who was using this record might suddenly get other data from this position - even if nobody "really changed" this particular record (record #1000 in the example).
Perhaps a safe version of this algorithm could be implemented, but I have no further ideas right now.
Hilmar.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
