Hi Paul,

> I'm simply saying that Next and Prior should not go beyond the ends
> of the data.

I don't know - I'm used to this behaviour and it suits me fine. Maybe
because it's analogous to how iterators behave in C++. It just feels
natural to me that if you're stepping through <something> in your
code, your last step takes you beyond the last element. I also have
lots of loops set up like this:

for ( MyDataset->First(); ! MyDataset->Eof; MyDataset->Next() )

The day Jason decides to change First and Next like you propose, these
loops will still compile fine but they will become black holes: what
goes in there never comes out again! :-)

Now, if you say there should be two functions - say "NextRec" and
"PriorRec" - that go to the next or prior record _if_ such a record
exists, yes, those might come in handy, especially for code you write
in response to user button clicks etc. In general, you don't want to
bother the user with concepts like EOF, "beyond the end of data", and
stuff like that.


Greetings,
Paul Vinkenoog, beyond your wildest EOF