No not really, it just implies this is the Valid event of a textbox.

Glenn

>Is "textbox::valid" superclass notation?
>
>>To "Setfocus" to another control using the return value from the valid event is made more acceptable using the this control / that control offset technique like this:
>>

>>textbox::valid
>>
>>do case
>>  Case Ok = .t.
>>    RetVal = 1
>>  Case Ok = .f.
>>    RetVal = 0
>>  case goto_textname
>>    retval = this.tabindex - this.parent.textname.tabindex
>>  case goto_texttype
>>    retval = this.tabindex - this.parent.texttype.tabindex
>>  case goto_ComboYear
>>    retval = this.tabindex - this.parent.ComboYear.tabindex
>>endcase
>>return retval
>>

>>
>>Glenn
>>
>>>>I agree with your approach of doing a form level valid completely. And we are moving to doing more of this.
>>>>However our large existing app has around 400 forms - so it would be quite a task at this stage.
>>>
>>>Yes, that looks like a lot of work.
>>>
>>>>So we've taken to KEYBOARDing CHR(9) s to workaround the setfocus issue. But this is a horrible kluge.
>>>
>>>That should be more or less equivalent to valid (number). Also a kludge: in both cases you have to count objects, and adjust if you insert additional objects.
>>>
>>>BTW, with the KEYBOARD command, I think you can also use "{TAB}" instead of chr(9). This might make it more readable.
>>>
>>>As a workaround, if you can't SetFocus() within the Valid() event, you might postpone it with a Timer (with a brief interval). But I don't know whether this works; perhaps the Valid() will then fire again.