Hi Dmitry

As you know, I agree that the bug you reference NOT yet being fixed (yet still showing VFP6 as the latest version where it applies in the KB article) is not a good thing at all.

That said, you know that it remains a bug in VFP8 and your workaround code is already in place.
Unless there are also other bugs that you've seen reported in VFP8 that you know present a danger to your applications' code, I'd think that moving to VFP8 has other merits.

You already know about Intellisense. What about the few data "integrity" features added in VFP8... like detecting an incorrect record count (which causes loss of data) and prevention of tables going beyond 2GB (making them unopenable for action)????

These are BOTH problems with VFP6 and VFP7 and to me add weight to moving up to VFP8.

cheers (whatever you choose/do)

>>>I knew there got to be a reason why I stay with VFP 6 <g>.
>>
>>You don't know what you're missing. :) Intellisense itself is well worth upgrading.
>
>I agree with you 100% about usefulness of intellisense. And I often load VFP 7 to lookup a syntax using intellisense. I just don't have the confidence that VFP 7/8 is more stable than VFP 6 and therefore still maintain my customers' applications in VFP 6. Actually I was about to jump into VFP 8 when I discovered that bug Q190496 was not fixed in 7 and 8. This bug broke a lot of my code, where I had to jump through hoops to get around it. And I was looking forward to removing my "work-arounds" after upgrading to VFP 8 when I was really surprised that the bug is still there.