Maybe I’ve hyped this up too much...

It all stems from my work in Visual Studio, where the class files are ALL in ascii format (like a PRG), but yet there is also Class Designer GUI interface to that same source code file (similar to PEM Editor). So, you can always work in either format at any time; No conversion necessary and both are real time working on the source code. VS also has many other code editing features that VFP does not have, like code collapsing, Go To Definition (to jump a method call on the current line), and refactoring features like, Extract to Method, etc, which make working in a code file very easy.

Both the Code Window and file and the “Class Designer” can be open at the same time on the same source file, so you just choose where you want to work. It’s very easy to hop back and forth to each window. Oddly I find that I work 95% of the time in the Code Window (probably more) , which is *just the opposite* of my preference and habit of working in VFP, where I prefer to live and breathe in VCXs and PEM Editor. I can’t explain it, but that’s just how I work in the two different worlds.

Clearly the Visual Studio model is the ultimate in flexibility, right? Whereas VFP forces you to choose one or the other, with no easy way (if at all, honestly), to even reliably translate, much less actually work in both formats simultaneously.

Therefore, I said to myself (and anyone else who will listen to my rants), that *IF* I could have Code Edit access to my entire VCX, I *might* be more likely to work there a lot more. It’s mostly speculation, based on my VS habits.

If it required a hard conversion back and forth all the time, then it’s unlikely that it will be worth the hassle, as you mentioned earlier.

Also, without the other supporting IDE features that I mentioned above, maybe the experience or usefulness will not be there, and it will have all been a waste of time.



>Well, you certainly can't do all classes ... the non-visual classes can't live in a VCX, so as a start you should reconstruct your wish list to state 'visual classes' instead of 'any/all classes'.
>
>Then, at least, it's not just pie in the sky stuff.
>
>
>
>>>>>>With the powerful features of PEM Editor (filtering by property/method name, sorting, viewing parent code, etc.) I find that my productivity of working on even Non-Visual classes is much faster when working in a VCX.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, I cannot adopt your preference for keeping Custom classes in a PRG. I am too spolied with PEM Editor. However, I will admit that there *are* times that I wish I could temporarily work on the VCX in a PRG, just for a few certain tasks, and then come right back to the VCX.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe one day!
>>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I will stick with native editor:)
>>>>>How do you work on non-visuals in a VCX? I vaguely remember I could add non-visuals to a VCX in very old times but I forgot how I could do it. Would you remind.
>>>>>
>>>>>PS: You could work on VCX as if it were a prg if you directly use the vcx table and edit properties/methods fields and then compile.
>>>>>Cetin
>>>>
>>>>You are saying "non-visual"... I don't know if it is the same, maybe not, but I built my Business Object classes based on the Custom class when I addded them to the VCX. Is that "non-visual"? Either way, that's what I have, and I use PEM Editor to work on them. It basically gives me a nice way to work on the Properties and Methods that exist in each class.
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>
>>>Custom is a VISUAL class. Column, header, session ... are non-visual classes.
>>>Cetin
>>
>>Either way, all this terminology of what is "visual" and what is "non-visual" is a distraction from the actual issue I raised...
>>
>>Which, to recap, is:
>>
>> "I wish there were a (1) reliable, (2) efficient, quick, seemless way to (3) fully round-trip (4) any/all VFP classes (5) from a VCX to PRG and/or from PRG to VCX."
>>
>>That's it.... Just 5 simple steps which meet 100% of the above stated features.
>>
>>
>>.