>Remember, the FRX is a DBF with a special name. So, even though they haven't added new FIELDS that doesn't mean they won't add new record types!!!
>
>BOb


Yes, I am aware an FRX is a DBF. But having the meanings of table columns vary based on a record type is another kludge. Most of us stopped doing the Record Type 1, Record Type 2, thing 20 years ago. It certainly would be ironic to see such an unnormalized data design in a database product.

As I said to Dan, I don't have a problem with them making inelegant data design decisions if backward compatibility is a must and that's the only way to support new features.

Mike