>Hiya Rox ---
>
>I'd have to agree with the assertion that sometimes developers use patterns and specific styles just to say that they are using them.
>
>Objects based loosely on certain patterns are, however, a great way of removing the implementation from the interface (if that's your goal). A problem is that what works may or may not be easily classified by current pattern definitions. So maybe we need new definitions of some patterns that may or may not be appropo only to VFP.
>
>As the authors of "Design Patterns" stated in their intro in the book, the defined patterns in the book were not all there were....there were plenty more waiting to become apparent.
>
As it seems to me, the whole idea of design patterns was someone's need to classify procedures that good programmers use to create apps, and hopefully make them re-usable by others. This way, lots of good design tricks evolved into some kind of theory - but then, we're all programmers here, and I wouldn't be surprised if new design patterns may emerge here. IOW, if someone's design doesn't fit into any of design patterns (or, worse, seems like a violation of some of them), and yet it proves to be successfull - shouldn't it be recognized as a new pattern?