>>> I agree that this is a good idea and if presented in the right way $M would probably receive it well. I would hope that we, as a group (fox developers), would not limit what we are asking for from $M to what we think they will give us. That seems defeatist to me.
>>
>>You're right, it is somewhat defeatist, but I'd hate to put a lot of effort into assembling a list of features that I know they won't provide.
>
>Mike,
>
>How much work can it be? Hit me with your top 3 on this thread, and I hit you with mine. Now we already have six in the list.

I scratched my head (top side) and here's what was already there:

- ability to call anything programatically that exists in VFP (starting with, but not limited to, AddMethod etc); this is needed for the kind of servers which must have no UI

- defining default class of members to be added when number of member objects is changed in containers like Pageframe, Grid, OptionGroup and Commandgroup

- Unicode support

- OO reports (or at least ability to include ready objects into reports - imagine having a part of a report header defined only once, and redefined in only one place). Even better, if we had a chance to use the same objects we use for forms.