>Everything you describe here could be done already... You may have to write your own metadata layer, but I feel certain you could do it...
>
>What do you think most people want?
>
>1. Improve the X-base'ness of the product
>2. Improve the integration with ADO/OLE-DB, SQL-Server, etc....
>
>My guess is that most folks would vote for #2...
>

Obviously count me for #2 - an extreme 2, who'd like to see 3 - a reduction of xBASE behavioral support.

>Jim Booth's observation is particularly good. In what you are advocating here, you would be making the migration to SQL-Server, Oracle, etc that much more difficult.
>
>As far as the conclusions you have reached regarding SQL in general, you know my stance on that....<s>....

I'd like to see VFP move into a marketplace where we give up backwards compatibility, strengthen the ActiveX/COM capabilities, and retain it as a strong interpretive language with the advantages of compile-on-the-fly, macro-expansion, name substitution and expression evaluation. A fast, powerful and flexible interpreter with strong data handling, that plays well in the COM environment definitely has a place in Microsoft's product lineup well into the future.