>Martin, I hadn't realized you worked for Microsoft. ;-)
>
>It does seem likely that Linq will be a major hit once the legions of MS developers are shown what it means. They say that success has many fathers but a failure is an orphan, so at that point I'm sure there will be plenty of paternity claims and attributions regarding the tremendous "innovation" Linq offers. However, I think if you consider public comments made in the last 4 years by people like YAG and Anders Hejlsberg regarding certain matters, perhaps VFP people can be allowed an occasional fatherly (or motherly?!) sense of satisfaction regarding at least one of the Linq siblings. ;-)

Hi, John.

Yes, I'm working for them again... I'm startic to get if it's a chronic problem... 8-)

I partly agree with Kevin in that some people put too much emphasis on LINQ to SQL, which is full of constraints, by definition. I guess that maybe LINQ to Entities -if the Entity Framework gets widely adopted at some point- can do a better job in this space.

For me there is not so much people claiming paternity of it. I never heard anyone from the core VFP team claiming anything like that. As far as I know -and I may have skipped something, for sure- Alan always talked about the VFP team involvement in the LINQ project recently (not in the inception). Anders never mentioned anything about Fox except statesment like "the idea of doing queries from the language is something the dBase/Fox people always had". But this is not the same as saying that LINQ is based on xBase...

For me it is like saying that LINQ is based in LISP. Yes, it uses lambda expressions, it has expression trees, but the whole area of funtional programming is much larger than LISP. Query integration is surely something that we always had in Fox, but it is hardly the only previous implementation, although it surely is a very good one for many scenarios.

Regards,