Craig,

With all due respect, there are TONS of things in VFP that could be thrown out if the yardstick is elimination of "lazy programmers".

In THIS case there are, in my opinion, two flaws to your logic:
1) If TRY...CATCH is designed to catch errors, then why doesn't it catch this error?
2) TRY...CATCH is itself the product of requests by programmers, all of whom must themselves have been very lazy when one considers that there has always been an error handling capability in Fox!

Finally, I don't see in the Help entry for TRY...CATCH...FINALLY Command anything that describes what errors will or will not be caught in the TRY code. Perhaps if the documenters had seen fit to record that information it would have embarrassed the VFP Team into making it handle ALL errors!

Jim

>I don't think error handling should be used to catch things a lazy programmer should be taking caring of.
>
>>Hi Craig,
>>
>>The problem here is i would also expect an exception to be triggered by the try-catch block, but a open dialog box is displayed to the user instead. I agree with you that the code is wrong and could be fixed simply by adding a if used() But the point of a try-catch block is to avoid unnecessary test like this, is it ?
>>
>>Why would VFP ask a user to open a table or select an OCX (when an OCX is not registered on the client machine)? It is really not an acceptable behavior from a development tool. It's like VFP saying "Hey you, programmer, you didn't do your job properly so let me ask the user if he can do a better job!"
>>
>>