>>(snip)
>>
>>>>
>>>>Regarding giving SYS calls more useful names you said: "It would merely add to code bloat".
>>>>-An alias to these calls wouldn't add diddly to overhead. By my count there were 52 SYS calls in FPW 2.6, there are now 73 in VFP 6. As MS goes forward why not assign useable names to these things. Again, I suspect that there is some underlying reason for this.
>>>
>>>Originally it had to do with the C compiler. But, I do agree that there should be no reason to continue with SYS functions today.
>>>
>>
>>Hi Guys:
>>
>>PMFJI: Actually, as I recall, legend has it that the original genesis of SYS() was a way to put specific functionality into FoxBase without losing dBASE compatibility every time Ashton-Tate decided to screw with the commands and functions behaviour to try to break FoxBase by adding its own definition of a command that Dr. Dave added to FoxBase...
>>
>>Too logical not to be true... A-T as an organization became real jerks when they started to lose their edge... FWIW: I really hate the SYS() functions because there is no way to know what any given one does without checking HELP or some other reference first. At least an 'english-like'/'human-readable' name would be a good start and hopefully help quickly determine a better approach/command to accomplish a task...
>>
>>Rob
>
>
>I just thought of this...but we don't need MS to fix this. We can do it now using the preprocessor.
>
>#DEFINE MyFunction() SYS(0)
>
>
>etc.

Yup, that'll work. Only problem is, as when Clipper introduced User-Defined-Commands (UCDs) - the code can become difficult for others to understand and/or maintain... I think, in general, that its wiser to just use the native syntax of the language being employed -- fewer problems in the long run at the cost of some clumsiness for the current developer... Besides, if you call the function one thing, but someone else likes a different name, we are back to the same situation we have today with the MS versions/names.

Can't win 'em all.

Rob