>PMFJI but if Unicode is a strict requirement for your application, don't waste a lot of time considering VFP. More recent languages like .NET and Delphi, as well as all the major DBMSs, support Unicode right out of the box. There's no sense trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
>
>VFP still does some things very well. This just isn't one of them.
>
>Mike
That's more or less what I think to - despite the fact that, otherwise, I like VFP a lot.
Another popular option is Java, which has unicode built-in from the very beginning. For example, the standard strings are stored with two bytes per character.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
