>>>I'd classify the inability to access array elements beyond 4096 (first column) when the array is a property and 2-dimensioned as critical even if such is presently used by less than .1% of the VFP developer population. There is NO (known at this time) workaround for this.
>>
>>Hmm... its actually not defined correctly in the wiki.
>>
>>It seems that an array that is a property of an object can only have 32,767 elements and no more. What's weird is that is the same as Maximum # of pages in a report at runtime capacity.
>
>Well I tried that code in VFP7 SP1 and it runs without error.
>>
>>Is this less than the stated capacity, sure. Is it a show stopper, I don't think so. You can use a collection instead, right?
>
>The originator seemed to have hit this in existing running code (VFP6 is mentioned as running fine with the code). So I'm not sure your 'workaround' is legit in this case. And what if there are objects stored in that array?... then the Collections problem recently reported might come into play.
>
>>
>>BOb

Wasn't the For Each issue just the fact that the objects when compared didn't report as the same object? That seems like a pretty obscure thing to do... I am not sure what Randys use case was... I think it had somethng to do with dynamic object assignment for his web framework.