you can pretty much write that off. VFP is not likely to be presented as a lnaguage in the CLR let alone getting options to compile either way. It would be incompatible anyway.

+++ Rick ---


>My opinion on the CLR is that we should request a compile-time option so that we could write CLR and nonCLR applications. We will already be 1 version behind on this feature, being two behind may very well finish off VFP.
>
>>What do I think? I think that this whole CLR issue is BS insofar as VFP is concerned. The only time it becomes an issue, really, is when a VFP developer wants to create a .NET application and steadfastly refuses to learn VB, C++, or C#.
>>
>>The day of the VFP only developer is waning in the big application world, but the same could be said, more-or-less, about the day of the VB only developer. People need to start learning more tricks of the trade and stop being a one trick pony.
>>
>>I'm pretty excited about the whole .NET thing because it opens up new options and gives us more tools, whether or not we need those options and tools now or sometime in the future.
>>
>>>Correct me on this if I was wrong, but based on Fox Wiki docs. courtesy of VFUG newsletter, several attendees of the recently concluded VFP devcon in Miami Florida were upset because the conference became a .NET centric rather than VFP centric. This goes to show that vast number of VFPers are not welcoming or not ready to play with the .NET/CLR technology yet. If .NET flops, it is to the advantage of VFPers, but if it's a smash hit, well, VFPers will fill that VFP is just a shadow in the VS box again. Well, I was not able to attend the DEVCON (as much as I want but distance and resources does not permit me though), but to me, discussing .NET technology is timely because it will give us clearer picture of what it is really. It gives us enough knowledge on how VFP will fit to our needs without being left behind by the technology again. What do you think folks?