>>When I got this to work I was under the impression that this was something big, alas the lack luster response here on the UT is disappointing.
>
>"White man come, hunt our squaw and rape our buffalo... don't laugh before you try!".
>
>And I'm not laughing, I tried. Actually, I know most of the problems you had to solve to do this, i.e. to write an indexer in the first place. I was writing these since 14 years ago, and I know what a PITA the embedded information in a DBC is... if you remove an index, you have to put it all back etc etc.
>
>This time, my only excuse for not jumping in on this one is that when the original message was posted, we had a nice little storm here, which knocked out the power for a few seconds, and then took me some hours to recover what I was doing. When I came back to UT today... I saw a huge thread. And, what can I say - WOW!
>
>Count me in, of course.

Hi Dragan,

I've added you to the list.

I have to admit I am perplexed by the sudden renewed interest - it's got me motivated to finish the shared mode FPT pack. I've also thought about, but not experimented yet with a shared mode DBF pack. Where a system does not rely on absolute record position (i.e. RecNo) it may be possible to shorten a file after moving all of the records at the end of the file over those that are marked for deletion. This has little value to me since I recycle records - with no actual index on Deleted(), I just toggle my primary keys between positive and negative.

Regards,
Houston.