>Now, would you call this a bug? I'd say, yes, it is a bug, because working with a local updateable view should be the same as working directly on the table.
>I guess some might say that documenting the behavior in the VFP help for RECALL and in VFP help for updateable views is the only thing that is missing...
>Thanks.
I find this a difficult question. The fact that it is not properly documented may cause trouble, so at the very least, it is a "bug in the manual".
On the other hand, if you ask me what behavior I expected when sending updates back to the table, I could almost have figured out that it works this way - that is, if I had ever taken the trouble to think it through.
I expect the local views to work similar to remote views, so converting the recalled record to an INSERT seems quite logical to me. I can understand that you have a different opinion, though.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
