John,

I can't argue against any of that (surprised?).

I guess I'm again trying to think of:
1) the novice, who can easily get bollixed by this behaviour;
2) a way to "best" VB in some small way;
3) making a longer list of VFP wish items to try to learn what kind of item seems to interest them.

And I really do hate the idea that a program cannot be trusted to do EXACTLY what I tell it to *OR* tell me why it refuses. I don'r code c++, but I'm sure that if I tell it to free some memory that I have previously GetMained (if that is a correct term) and then try to retrieve/store something into that (now freed) memory, it tells me that I can't do that. Why Release (or the Destroy event or anything else with like responsibility) cannot do the same is, to me, really poor design. Design which needs fixing.

Cheers,

Jim N

>Hi Jim....
>
>Requesting a feature to a solve a problem that would not exist with a good design??? No question that dangling object refs can be a problem. However, if you employ a good design and don't go crazy with creating lots of object references, and don't rely on Pemstatus to a great deal, I find that you don't really have these problems.
>
>I don't know....I can think of a dozen or so things I would like to see in VFP - before I could think of givin this idea serious consideration. How about better ActiveX Control Support?
>
>Just employ some good design techniques - and the object references will take care of themselves.