Hi Fred
I understand but I think that would create all sorts of dependencies between objects (sessions in this case) which would be considered design issues by some. Nontheless something to avoid XML would be nice.



>
>I'm sure there would be some gotchas, isn't there always? <g> We'd need either some sort of keyword, or additional hierarchy syntax, maybe something like:
>

SELECT dbc!table.fieldA@1, othertable.fieldB@2 FROM table, othertable

>or
>

SELECT table.fieldA, othertable.fieldB FROM table IN 1, othertable IN 2

>or something along those lines.
>
>You could add a similar syntax to the INTO cursor@1 or something like that.
>
>Another improvement I'd like to see is Named Datasessions or aliases instead of using numbers. I've yet to submit that suggestion.
>
>>What I intended by my reply is that you can rely on datasession 1 always being around, so by switching datasessions you can achieve a very similar result, but of course it's not so nice, and you have to be really careful doing this if a form is around and somehow it gets refreshed, or if a user clicks on a menu and the SKIP condition refers to a table that is no longer there.
>
>I do that all the time, switch data sessions. Works well, but it makes it a it difficult to work with application wide tables in a private datasession form.