David,

If that is true, I find it unacceptable. If I'm to measure how well my software performs, I expect adequate measuring tools. If my client is expected to trust me, then I must trust what I'm doing and how I'm doing it.

[There was a longer message to this, where I railed and rambled on about how unacceptable I found this situation to be. However, I checked the rules of conduct and realized I probably might be out of bounds a little in saying it. Therefore, I leave it up to your imagination. :-) The content was clean, and a it's a speech I'd be proud to give if my children were in the audience.

Put this way, I would be more than a little worried if I found out the hospital's life-support system I was on was written in VFP 5.0a]

Ed


>Ed,
>
>SYS(1016) has never been a reliable memory use indicator in VFP, if you are instantiatng and destructing objects.
>
>>Now, I've got a different puzzle for you. Try the code out below, running it 'as is' first. Then, uncomment section B and try it again. Next, uncomment section A and try it. Finally, uncomment section C and try it. Section B doesn't cause a memory leak, but sections A and C do.
>>
>>Note: This is in VFP 5.00.00.0402. I thought I had implemented SP3, but evidently not. I'm going to retry this exercise after applying the service pack.