Easy guys!

I am certainly sorry I start this thread.

There is no reason for you guys to pick on each other like this. OK, VFP documentation is deficient in lots of places -- in other places it's pretty good. Compared to other development languages it's ok in terms of (1) clarity and (2) comprehensiveness. It is also pretty good compared to the old FoxBase/dBase stuff. (Lest we forget!!!)

On the other hand a lot of it is incomplete, even misleading. A lot of the erroneous stuff has been around for at least two editions of VFP, is well known to MS, and still has not been fixed.

If MS is actually trying to make the documentation better -- there is very, very little evidence of it. Jim Nelson is right in that there has been only minor changes in the documenation since VFP 3. Craig is also correct taht MS is improving the docs -- albeit at the pace of an anemic, crippled turtle.

One can only hope that MS is putting the effort into improving the language in place of improving the documentation -- I hope, I hope.

Be kind to fellow programmers, folks. Everyone is entitle to his or her opinion -- even if it is dead wrong.

Smile,