>Walter, to summarize this: your opinion has absolutely no value - VFP is not a natural extension of the xBASE environment. It's been trying to move out of it for a while. My opinion doesn't count, because if I don't get what I need out of VFP, I'll use something that suits my needs. Perpeuating xBASE behaviors, IMO really stupid ones that you can implement now, is going to hurt the language more than it'd ever help. I want a strong OO, interpretive language with strong on the fly compilation, macro expansion and evaluation. I'd love to see the xBASE crap go by the wayside. I clearly don't want or see any value to your request, and it isn't worth debating. From my POV, you're clueless here - VFP is not meant to be a perpetuation of bad xBASE into the next generation of poorly conceived monolithic applications. It's a strong player at mid-tier, and that what I want MS to emphasize. So take your SET RELATIONS, SET SKIPS, ISAMish coding and don't ask if I think it's the right
>thing to do with VFP, because AFAIC, it's not. It's stagnation and brain damage at best.

Ed,

Could you be a bit more clear on your position. I don't think I quite know exactly where you stand.