>>I offered to code it or large portions of it. What I received back in several responses
>>were negatives (replies that began with something like "Unfortunately..." or "That
>>would be nice, but..." or "It wasn't designed to...", etc).
>
>All of that is accurate enough. The one thing you saw in Thor, a tool to assign MDots,
>did not really provide you with the information you would need for what you wanted to
>accomplish. Unfortunate, but true.

Having written this ability myself (parsing VFP source code and identifying variable references), and knowing that there are only so many ways to skin a cat, I recognized what was required to make this happen. If you're able to identify variables from source code syntax from VFP source files, forms, classes, etc., in Thor (which you obviously are), then every piece of information I need to carry out this work exists except the additional comparison logic and integration setup. As for the existing code, it's just a matter of refactoring a few algorithms to handle this new ability.

>I can't control what impression you got, of course, but the limitation in Thor is -- well --
>if you can call a PRG to accomplish a task, it can be done in Thor. In fact, it's quite easy
>to take any existing program to make it available in Thor. That limitation was in your
>perception. So, if you could write a PRG to do what you want, it could easily be
>accommodated in Thor.

I did realize this. But, I was told, "Thor wasn't designed to do..." so I responded with an explanation of how it could be done, offering also to code it for Thor.

>We welcome all new tools in Thor. Some tools are not widely used until they are published
>and understood. Others only apply to a small audience. (The tool that adds M.Dots, for instance,
>is not going to be used by everybody).
>
>I believe you may have confused the response of "there is not as much here to build on for your
>suggestion" with "there is no interest in your suggestion".

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I think there is almost ZERO interest in my suggestion because people see a usable, workable solution by prefixing everything with the "m." text and being done with it, or by not using "m." prefixes and "risking" the danger of having it crash when some unexpected collision comes about.

My personal interest in not using the "m." prefix solution is because it's beyond completely hideous. It also affects my ability to read the code as I have dyslexia and already have enough trouble reading code. It's why all of my source code is aligned visually.

>Yup, there are M.Dots Enthusiasts around, as even can be seen in this thread on the UT.
>The make their voices heard here, just as they did in the Thor forum. That doesn't mean
>that they speak for anybody else, just themselves, even if they are highly visible because
>they are so vocal.

If I ever show up at a general VFP convention of some kind, I will consider wearing a T-Shirt which reads:

On the front:
t.Good
m.Bad

On the back:
SET
VARIABLESFIRST
ON

And we'll see how it goes. :-)