Often requested implies that a preponderance of developers ask for this sort of thing. Also, in your case, what you are looking for is something that bascially does the same thing as macro-substitution.

The fact is, most VFP developers will tell you that macro-substitution is one of those "key" features that separates VFP from other tools. Are there some developers who would not mind dropping macro-substitution. Sure - as long as you could retain most of the functionality. In other words, they want their cake and the ability to eat it as well.

Craig is incorrect in that it is often requested that Macro Substitution be dropped.



>>Excuse me???
>>
>>Often requested to drop macro substitution? Sorry, I don't beleive that for one moment. Rather, folks don't want to give up macro substitution. This issue comes up when folks want VFP to be compiled - like VB. This would mean the giving up of macro substituion. Folks usually back off when they have make this compromise.
>>
>>Sorry Craig, but you are flat out incorrect here.... Again, you have pulled out "facts" from think air...< s >...
>
>I have stated that I would be easily willing to give up macro substitution if we were given a few key things in exchange: a substitute for functions that take only literals instead of named expressions (certain SET commands), and a way to execute SQL expressions (a substitute for &lcSQL).
>
>I have heard several other developers echo these sentiments, and Craig has probably heard the same talk- how does that make him 'incorrect'?