I think it is documented - probably in the Readme.htm Section 2.1, and it was a bit of a surprise. But it is easy to fix. where you had '=' change that to ' =' and it then behaves like vfp7.
The cost of progress! When I saw that the behaviour of GROUP BY had changed it was a bigger deal but "SET ENGINEBEHAVIOUR 70" fixes that one. And there are so many goodies - its worth a little bit of pain - I think they did a great job! Have you tried "Code References" under Tools - isn't it magic?
Regards
>Hello all
>
>I first thought that I had discovered a serious bug in VFP8, the RTM version, but after a lot of painful digging I will downgrade it to an undocumented change in the behaviour. Or maybe I have used an undocumented 'feature' for years, and which also worked in the VFP8 beta.
>
>The first thing I did after installing the RTM version, was to 'do' some pretty advanced forms I have designed, and they all worked perfect, with the new look which I really like. (I use Win XP Pro). But when I wanted to modify the forms, VFP8 started to report a lot of error messages, eventually making me crash VFP.
>
>Many places I used expressions in the caption property for labels which obviously is no longer supported. For instance I have a label with this caption property: "='© BEAS-2003 - Versjon '+thisform.versjon ". Another label has a UDF as caption. (The "s are used here, not in the property sheet)
>
>This has been OK for years, also the VFP8 beta, the labels were blank at design time, and populated correctly at runtime. But VFP8 RTM does not like this, and I had to press Ignore many times plus cancel out of the procedure editor even more times, before eventually my form showed up in edit mode. The first times I was sure that I had discovered a bug, and tried to 'cancel' out, which was practically impossible. But after some digging I found the problem which was relatively easy to fix. I put some dummy text in the caption properties and populated them with the wanted values in the init event.
>
>The big issue here is that this behaviour does not seem to be documented. Even worse, you don't get any clear message about what the errors are, and absolutely nothing about where they are. So it can take quite a lot of time to fix.
>
>Does anyone have any comments to this new behaviour? I think Microsoft should post a message about it.