>>That is great. Maybe one day they'll get rid of those goofy VCX/SCX files altogether.
>
>I'd hate to give up the VCX/SCX format. There are all kinds of things you can do processing classlibs as a table that are much harder working with text files.

Name some "things".

It's called "hacking", and wouldn't be necessary if one had an ASCII representation of the Class or Form.

And the "hack" is usually performed to solve some "problem" that was perpetuated by the flaky VCX/SCX to start with; ie. invalid records, "lost" methods, etc.

"BROWSEing and editing" a VCX/SCX is no alternative to a powerful (and personal) text editor and .PRG *FILES*, IMO.

Note I said FILES, since most text editors can processes *across* multiple files at the same time (not so a VCX/SCX).

Also, consulting some of the new features in VFP7, one sees a number of new functions for enumerating Class and Procedure names in ".PRG" files, in addition to other functions that make "text programming/processing" easier. The language seems more and more geared towards "code-on-the-fly" and code generation; hardly a feature of a VCX/SCX.

VCX/SCX's may be a "feature" that is unique to FoxPro, but I sure wouldn't consider them a benefit or an advantage. It's more likely hampering its progress and adaptation by others who know the difference.