This is my point. A lot of people want VFP to be compiled. Yet, when they find out that this involves getting rid of macro sub., they back off. This contradicts the assertion that getting rid of macro sub. is requested on a frequent basis.



>Go look at the number of developers that ask for a native VFP compiler, which would rule out macro substitution. FWIW, I'm in the "keep macro substitution camp".
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>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'?