Good grammar is a real problem here in the Netherlands. Even the best academically skilled people make very many grammar mistakes. There are certain types of mistakes that many make. For example using d where it should be dt (example: 'hij verbind' must be 'hij verbindt'.I think it would be a good development if we changed some basic grammar rules, esp. that we write it down in accordance with how we pronounce it. So, write 'hij verbint'. Remarkably, that oftentimes is exactly how it was written here in the middle ages. :)


>>No, it wasn't a typo. It is confusion on my side. I used to write 'I read' and 'I have read', but always had difficulty writing 'I read' meaning 'I did read'. I once noticed that people SAID 'I red' and thought that it also should be written that way, so I changed it. Now you're telling me that I wrote it well and nowadays write it wrong? Good to hear. Is this confusion also occurring amongst native speakers?
>
>Yes, yes it does.
>
>As the family joke goes, I taught myself to read because my Mom wouldn't read me the comics from the paper when Dad was on TDY (Temporary Duty). They'd taught me what the letters sounded like and had started teaching me to put them together into words (I was probably around 3 at the time). To this day, I tend to pronounce words that I've not run across before as they look and spell them as they sound. This is a handy skill in other languages, but in English - not so much.
>
>I do feel sorry for anyone learning English as a second language, especially when we throw things like the 'ough' grouping at you. Is it pronounced 'ow' like bough? 'oo' like through? 'uf' like rough? OI!
>
>>
>>>I agree that your English is fine. I never have a problem understanding you. You did type "red" instead of "read" the other day but that was probably just a typo. Salud.
>>>
>>>>As someone here pointed out to me, my English is quite good for a non-native speaker, making it far more difficult for a native speaker to sense that it's someone from abroad. There were more often miscommunications due to this. E.g. I have used 'eventual' for many many years where I should have used another word expressing 'possibly'. In my older code I encounter esp. this word quite often. I can't change it unless I have an urgent reason to change the code.
>>>>
>>>>>Interesting. That eluded me, or has at least eluded my memory. Yes, in English "require" does come through as "demand." I try to be sensitive to the fact that many here do not speak English as a first language and may have missed the boat on that one. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Alan Griver's irritation was mainly caused by the fact that I had used the word 'require' in my request for extra info. It was only later that I was told (if I recall well it was Dragan) that 'require' is not like the French requirer (ask), but that it is kind of an order. People like Alan had forgotten that they were communicating with a non-native English speaker. I also remember that Alan admitted that he had had so many confrontations with people in those weeks and that this all had led to severe stress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nothing personal but I see you have not changed a bit ;-) You are like a dog with a bone over some pretty obscure issues. I vividly remember an endless back and forth you got into here with Alan Griver when he announced that VFP was being sunsetted. Alan is about the most even tempered person the community has ever had, certainly at his level. IMO he went way beyond the call in repeating politely what he had already said to you. You refused to be satisfied and finally he decided "enough." IIRC he said he was going to go put some steak on the grill. It was like you wanted Bill Gates to swing by your house and explain it in person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Obsession can be a good trait. Up to a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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