Honestly, Craig, it sounds like we're reading different threads!

What does coding a "SUSPEND" have to do with the issue at hand. You can pick any number of things that a LAZY programmer might do. But in fact a whole lot of the improvement of FP/VFP over the years have been sourced exactly from the 'laziness' of programmers and I'd venture that TRY...CATCH is one of them.

No one, not even FabioL, is saying that presentation of an Open dialogue is an 'error'. What he asked for was that he be able to use TRY...CATCH to be able to suppress the dialog (because it is likely an error that precipitates the dialog in the first place) and present his own information or take his own action instead.
So, in fact, any program that was written to depend on the dialog would continue to operate as (lazily) designed. I say lazily on purpose because if the dialogue isn't going to tell the USER which table to look for the programmer has essentially delegated an impossible task to the USER.

By the way, I personally had the experience of ridicule and piling on by gurus here (funny... same ones doing it here!!!) on an issue a couple of years ago. Turned out I was right then and I firmly believe that FabioL is 100% correct here.

Jim

>SUSPEND has been in the language much longer than TRY/CATCH. This is another one of those things that frequently programmers put in, then have error code to ignore the runtime errors. Again, the VFP team is not responsible to take fix issues caused by lazy programmers.
>
>Presentation of an Open dialog is not an error. Did you consider the possibility that someone may very well want the command to work the way it does?
>
>>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