>>I acknowledge that there were bugs and that they were fixed. I hae trouble with both attributing the NEED to go ANSI as the only way to fix it
>
>Not the only way, but in my view, and the view of many others, the _right_ way. FoxPro should never have allowed the ambiguous syntax in the first place and I'll bet you that most people using it don't know it's ambiguous and don't realize how it works.
>
>I can make that bet because I've answered dozens of questions on this subject over the years and written it up for publication more than once.

You're right as far as I am concerned, because I rarely use GROUP BY. And as I have said, once you provided explanations there was no further argument from me as regards the existence of these bugs.
The issue was that ANSI compatibility was a by-product of fixing the bugs and I took exception to that AND to the implementation forcing code changes.

I guess it's arguable that the reason you answered similar ambiguity questions so often is that people saw the discrepancies in their testing and asked/accused about it. Which I would take to also imply that they didn't implement as was once they learned the facts. But you can be pretty sure that they still coded GROUP BYs with only the fields of interest and not ALL fields.


>
>Tamar