Gordon,

To me, this sounds like a bug - the "M" should not be dropped, assuming that you are not intercepting keystrokes yourself in code somewhere.

While I think it's a bug, it may also be a result of being combined with an inordinately large list. As such, it should be reproducible and so solvable by the VFP Team.

In the meantime, you need a workaround. I see that DavidF has an idea that may work out.

good luck


>Simply put: NO.
>
>I want my incremental search to work like it is suppose to for the first instance of SMITH.
>
>That would mean instead of using .5, I would use 2.5 to get to my SMITH record.
>
>You and I are on different wave lengths right now, but both of us know what the incremental search is suppose to do.
>
>.05 = Search by a single letter every time. Goto S, Goto M, Goto I
>1.0 = Search by a group of letters. Goto SMI
>
>My problem is when I type in SMI, I get SI. The M is lost in space somwhere.
>
>
>>I misread the help file into thinking I could key a tick value instead of a number from .05 to 5.5.
>>
>>I tried 2.0... if I type VERY slow. it will work.
>>
>>Thanks...
>Gordon
>I tried to type an answer but when I previewed I seem to have lost it - so if you get two answers - a bonus!
>We must be coming at this from the opposite ends - You want it to not work as it was designed - which was to give and incremental search if you hit the second letter within the _incseek time interval - however you are a very fast typist, and enter the second letter to search on within the .5 seconds and end up with an incremental search whereas you wanted it to go to the entry starting with the second letter that you typed - if that is the case setting _incseek to lower than .05 is not possible - so far as I know.
>HTH
>Regards