Evan,

>I would also like a compile switch that would create a custom runtime for the exe (stripping out all the unused stuff) or creating a (gasp) stand alone EXE.

That would be very dangerous if you decide to make use of macrosubstitution and or compiling on the fly. It logically would mean that if you want to strip anything, macro substitution and runtime compiling would be stripped out also.

Besides probably a slow compiling process it would create large exe files. It seems to me that this should be used sparingly.

Walter,


>>Yeah...but, then again, maybe what we're talking about is reducing an EXE from, maybe, 800K to 500K but still requiring 6MB runtimes.
>>
>>>>I've also heard arguments made (that I agree with) calling for a more compact version of the VFP runtimes that tosses out all backward-compatible stuff (you know, the stuff that when you look in the Help file says "For backward compatibility, use XXXX instead").
>>>
>>>Or a compile time switch that allows this.