Graig,

My question was:

>>Are you telling that the enhancements made on class definition don't apply to classes in the visual class libraries ? Do we get the opposite from what we have now: You can create more complex classes in PRGs than in VCX libraries ? and, do we get a stronger division between visual classes and classes (such as the session class) ment for COM programming ?

Your answer was.

>VFP7 supports Interface inheritance and early binding.

I already know that VFP7 supports Interface inheritance and early binding. Though I know there are language enhancements on defining classes for COM programming, this was not really the answer I was trying to get. Early binding can be accomplished with visual classes. And why should we not be able to use interface inheritance within VCX libraries (though this might not make much sense for visual classes) ?

To me it seems an odd step to make a distinction between classes in a PRG and classes in a VCX. The question I'm asking is *if* this is absolutely neccesary or that it should be possible (in the future) to create all kind of classes in both PRGs and VCX libraries.

The problem with the current approach I find that currently we have two different means to create classes, both have their limitations and strenghts. I've have no problems with these two different ways, but it would be *nice* if both ways are solid enough to create every class you want.

Walter,