Larry:

> The point of this (I thought) was for two-way programming.

You and I disagree on this: I thought the point was text files are much more useful than tables in two-way programming.

> You and some others seem to feel that the only way to do this is to have text
> file based source files.

No I don't. I just think using text files is better than using tables in two-way programming.

> I disagree. Two way programming simply means a singular source file and if
> you change somrthing within the IDE (e.g. visual designer) then it is
> reflected in the source. If you change the source directly, it is reflected
> the next time you bring it up in the designer.

I'm not disputing that fact.

> That can be done using the VCX/SCX/MNX directly as tables. The table is the
> basis for VFP/FoxPro source files. As I said before, I believe this is so
> because VFP has the routines in place to parse these files. Nothing new had
> to written/integrated into the VFP codebase to handle this. The saying "Why
> reinvent the wheel" comes to mind. The Fox team had the routines to parse
> DBFs. They simply needed wrappers to these libraries for the exact structures
> of the SCX/VCX/MNX files.

Why not reinvent the wheel when something better comes along. What is .NET if not a re-invention of the wheel?

> Now if you want to change the premise entirely and say "I would rather have
> TXT based source files" then that would be a different discussion. There are
> benefits to having txt based source files (you mention one below); however,
> don't link the issue of two-way programming with the source files having to
> be text based because that is not correct.

And I thought "I would rather have TXT based source files" was the whole point of the discussion. Different people, different perceptions, no harm done.

Daniel