>I don't believe just because there are commands that had there origination in the non-OOPS XBASE world there is any reason to discard them. I believe that Fox enjoys quite an advantage, especially in data handling, over a lot of the so-called OOP's languages due to having the capability of its command language. I would be willing to bet that the proponents of more object orientation like Steven Black, Flash, and Ken Levy would not give of strengths of Fox due to it supposedly not being OOP's. After attending Steven Black's DevCon session I know that I need to make changes in some my implementation of design patterns and object orientation, but that does not include giving up on the commands that make Fox what it is.
>-myron-
>===============================
>>

I'm not suggesting getting rid of the Xbase commands, I in fact like them a great deal for their power and flexibility. They provide many things that other languages don't (e.g. VB). But I do think they could possibly be rejiggered to follow the standard dot notation that VFP itself has in newer language elements. This would probably lessen the learning curve for new developers and condition everyone to think along the line of objects and object hierarchies. Take a look at my original message to see the list of suggestions. I thought these recommendations might give more organization to the language. With this structure, one only has to use a tool like Ken Levy's excellent Superclass to get at things like _vfp.application.arrays.*** for a complete list of array commands and functions. This is much easier than going into the online docs every time you want to see all the commands for array manipulation. This morphing of XBASE commands into object groups would be a valuable next step in the evolution of VFP.