>Marcel,
>
>>In VFP 3,5,7,8
>>
>>VAL("3456-")=3456
>>
>>IN VFP 9
>>
>>VAL("3456-")=-3456
>
>Yikes! I'm glad you caught this one. I'm working on a data conversion from some BTrieve data where the sign is stored after the number. I like the new behavior, but as is my code wouldn't handle the sign properly. Thanks.

It seems to me that it is not really a good idea to use the VAL() function on strings that don't represent correctly an actual number. VFP should throw an error on these strings. As developers we should try to filter the string before using VAL(). My 0.01 cent.