>>>I don't see how it breaks encapsulation...
>>Encapsulation means every object is responsible for itself. Containers know about their contents, but objects at the same level are independent of each other.
>
>If I understand what you're writing, I think that's unworkable at times.
>
>A container class holding input fields including a quantity and a unit price have to know about the nearby total field. Adding code to the InteractiveChange event on one of those related input fields allows the other one to call the other object's InteractiveChange field when it changes, so the total can be updated from one location, and it's right there. These are three separate objects, but they have an implicit relationship. The parent container might also have other fields, like date, description, etc.
>
>I could create a method to do it at the container class level, and that method could query both object's .value property to then populate the third's. And then I have four things involved in doing a three-thing job. I also have to leave the object in the designer and find the parent container object, find the method, rather than seeing the code right there.
>
>There has to be a balance.
>
>I also don't use Thor. If it were named "Visual FoxPro Helper Utilities" I would use it. But "Thor"? Nope. It has undesirable connotations in the extreme.
>
>Thor -- "Scandinavian Mythology. the god of thunder, rain, and farming, represented as riding a chariot drawn by goats and wielding the hammer Mjolnir: the defender of the Aesir, destined to kill and be killed by the Midgard Serpent."
>
>Nope. Never.

Now I am offended. Thor was named by me, based on my own name which happens to mean Big (Stor, the S has "disappeared" over time). It can also mean thunder, which evolved into Thor.

The exact history behind the name is disputed. Anyway, banning the best VFP tool on this planet because of a misinterpretation is taking it way too far.