Now here is a trip down memory lane. When my younger daughter was in 2nd grade there was a weekly writing assignment. Each child wrote about an assigned topic in a writing notebook which was sent home for comment(s) by parents, which were then available to be viewed by both student and teacher.

One week the topic was some arcane rule of grammar. My comment to Emily in her notebook was you should try to learn the rules of grammar but the most important rule of writing is simple: make the reader want to keep on reading. If you can hit that one the exact rules don't matter.

Proving yet again that children won't always do what their parents want them to, she has exhibited little interest in writing. She is now an engineering major in college. I encouraged her to apply for Lorrie Moore's writing class, which has a waiting list miles long. LM is one of America's most esteemed living writers of fiction, that's all. Emily explained patiently, as though to a dolt, that it wouldn't count toward her degree. Kids!

I guess my philosophy is try to aim them in the right direction and let them fly.


>Wise words, and I at least think I fully (100%) understood you. :)
>Body language for sure helps, but IMO too many people insist on ending (or not even starting) debate over the internet or via e-mail, just because of the danger that it will get out of hand. Sure, there is a real risk that it will get out of hand, but it is my hunch that this says more about the person who refuses. And how about those who can't talk (e.g. after a tracheostomy)?! Do we have a right to insist on not (no longer) communicating with them because things might get out of hand?
>I think the sisters who teached you some lessons were very right on that one; we should be very careful with using shortcuts. The documents I write for colleagues are often criticized for being too extensive, meaning more than one page. But I know for sure that they are very to the point, contain all relevant info and read very smooth. My three page doc can be read in half the time that one needs to read another's half page full of shortcuts.
>
>>Peter;
>>
>>The American version of the English language is worthy of study. Many people (especially native users) have little understanding of his/her own language. Add to that the complexity of understanding what someone actually means.
>>
>>There is a term “body language”, which infers that you can look at someone to help understand what is attempting to be conveyed. A study done at Princeton University a few years ago concluded that if two people are in a room with no distractions, they will understand 25% of what is being discussed between them. Additionally, only 4% of what is discussed on the Internet is truly understood.
>>
>>My conclusion is that we are in real trouble if we think that we understand each other! I had a Catholic education and the Sisters really emphasized how to use the English language. To this day I prefer to attempt to say what I mean as well as I can without taking shortcuts. To give you an example of what I mean, someone at a government office asked me, “What is your social”? I was at a complete disadvantage as no one had asked me such a question before. So I had to ask what he meant. He became belligerent, and hung up his telephone.
>>
>>A term used in 1958 by many Americans was, “I am going to listen to my transistor”! I was 15 years old at the time and very interested in electronics. I would challenge them and state, “What do you mean? A transistor is a current amplifying device. How can you listen to it”? My conclusion is that I cannot change the world by requesting that others communicate in a more clear manner. But I can dream! :)
>>
>>A term used in 1958 by many Americans was, “I am going to listen to my transistor”! I was 15 years old at the time and very interested in electronics. I would challenge them and state, “What do you mean? A transistor is a current amplifying device. How can you listen to it”? My conclusion is that I cannot change the world by requesting that others communicate in a more clear manner. But I can dream!
>>
>>When I studied Spanish and German, I developed a greater understanding of the English language. Also, studying other languages helps you to attempt to understand how people who speak other languages think. Subject before title, or title before subject, etc.?
>>
>>So to attempt to get back on the subject, if microsoft says something, do not worry. No one knows what they mean! :)
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>>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