Ed,

>I have a lot of code in place now that relies on the same functionality as CLSHEAP, and have already implemented classes like NETRESOURCE that offer different functionality than Christof's generic structure handling, so I haven't needed it for my own code. I'd like to see STRUCT use the same memory management API calls that CLSHEAP does and similar data conversion tricks, to eliminate the need for the external file that has to be distributed with STRUCT, but that isn't a major drawback - it's far less intrusive than an ActiveX control, requiring less 'attention' during installation.
>
>Neither STRUCT nor CLSHEAP handles low-level pointers and structures as easily or quickly as languages with native pointer support, and coding to use them would be relatively painful compared to C, at least for me. I'd go nuts if I had to rely on a call to a VCX to allocate each node of a directed graph and manipulate the pointers. In spite of agreeing with Marcus Egger, there are lots of places where life's too short to wait on VFP, and where you need to see more of the underlying metal and framework than VFP conveniently allows.

Do you see any posibility to improve Pointer handling within VFP ? OIW in what way could the struct class be improved ? I for one, think that it might be handy if the struct class could import C/C++ header files to automaticly determine the internal structure, which is indeed one of the major drawbacks at the moment. For the rest I'm quite comfortable with it.

Walter,