That's a perfectly adequate summary. No complaints from me ;) Michael J. Babcock, MCP wrote: > Was reviewing this thread amongst others in the ProFox archives: > http://leafe.com/archives/showMsg/336400 > > David Crooks (or others) -- did you find that VFP9 actually did unearth a > problem? Your post indicates a false positive since it appeared fine with > VFP7, but I didn't see a follow up to indicate whether VFP9 actually > identified a problem as it turned out, or not. > > I agree with Richard Kaye's comments that basically said "don't you want > to be alerted to a problem sooner rather than later?" (Sorry RK if I > paraphrased that wrong.) > > --Michael
-- Richard Kaye Vice President Artfact/RFC Systems Voice: 617.219.1038 Fax: 617.219.1001 For the fastest response time, please send your support queries to: Technical Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australian Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] All Other Requests - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- This message has been checked for viruses before sending. --------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
