>> Look better to whom? To ourselves? There is nothing wrong with "I have an idea, let's figure this out...". And you can use grins...lookie here :-D
>
>OK, well now I realize that I can :-), < g >, < s > and even ;( up here. I'll make use of them where appropriate.
>
>As far a looking better goes, I'm sure outsiders rear their heads here from time to time or maybe even just lurk to find out about VFP. But never mind, apparently advocating correct answers is a taboo subject.
>
>> It looks really pathetic when someone shows up out of the blue and challenges one of our more esteemed members with a semantical cheap shot.
>
>How is it a semantical cheap shot? Raising a Windows Event is a genuine need and I'd bet it's something Mr. Petersen would like to be able to do in VFP. Does it have much bearing on everyday business applications? No, but that doesn't make it a semantical cheap shot. Maybe if everyone who has treated it as such wasn't so quick to belittle, change the rules, etc. we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-)
>

I don't think the inability to raise Windows events to be minor, either. And API calls that require a callback are nearly impossible in VFP (you might be able to code an .FLL to get around it, but that goes well outside of native VFP code.) And how about VFP COM Objects with real collections - a piece of cake in VB, and a kludge at best to make an array property behave as if it were a collection. Much as I hate VB (and I do hate VB), there are things that can be done with it that VFP can't do in its present condition by itself.

And there are trivial operations I wouldn't hesitate to do under VFP, that VB would have trouble doing, too. I think it boils down to using the right tool for the right job - or better, for the right part of the job.

>Dick