To be honest, I expected this reply. :)

Can you recall who it was here on the UT that learned you and others that it is by design? Was it someone from MS or simply someone else?

>You wrote: It cannot possibly be by design, as it has nowhere been documented.
>
>I disagree with your assertion. Simply because something is not documented does not mean it is not a result of the design. Some features
>are only "documented" by word of mouth, which is how Iearned of this, long ago, here in the UT.
>
>
>
>>Hi Doug,
>>
>>Your Nope is simply incorrect. It cannot possibly be by design, as it has nowhere been documented.
>>
>>The reason you mention is far sought, as it would have been only a simple extra piece of code to re-initialize the properties, without almost any impact on the performance.
>>
>>I am also almost sure that this flaw is not occurring in scx's.
>>
>>>Hi Peter.
>>>
>>>>'By-design' may be what has been told to you, but to me that sounds like a rationalisation, to hide the real reason: a design flaw or simply a blind spot for this when implementing it, in both cases a flaw they somehow didn't want to repair.
>>>
>>>Nope, Jim is right -- it's by design, and has been there since VFP 3.0. The reason is the way VFP handles classes: a class is a template for an object. As Jim notes, when you instantiate a class for the first time, the class is read into memory and any properties with "=" are evaluated. VFP then copies the class definition to create the object. Instantiating it again creates another copy, but with the same property values as the class. So, properties with "=" are evaluated for the first object only.
>>>
>>>(Thanks to Christof Wollenhaupt for explaining this to me.)
>>>
>>>Doug