Yes, but the point was that all Messageboxes are modal (meaning nothing else in the application will function outside of the messagebox's button(s)).
It is not like WAIT WINDOW NOWAIT "Hello world!".

Since I appear to use Messagebox a lot instead of forms (for mere little warnings, like "Do you really want to delete this record" or "If you do this, I will do this"), I wonder if I should have a class base for my Messageboxes? I don't even know how to create a VFP class (other than just PROCEDURE in a main.prg), so that may be a good experience for me (as well I should do the same for ENABLED in the form's method). Is doing a Method the same as doing a VFP class or same idea?

Chuck

>2 methods on the form: EnableButtons (with parameter .T. or .F. - enable or disable) and MessageBox with the same parameters as default VFP function. MessageBox method is in the base form class, it calls EnableButtons(.F.), show message box, than EnableButtons(.T.). Than on each form you can write any code you want in the EnableButtons method to provide specifics for each form.
>
>Looks cool, but, anyway, for what it is needed? I hev not seen any ap with such strange functionality...
>
>>Yesterday, out of the blue, my little boy boss came up to me and asked if I could "dim" (in our language, it's disabled, via, ENABLED = .F.) all the button when I pop up those Messagebox() (his definition of "user friendly", regardless that all Messagebox are modal). Well? I said this is insane, but yeaaah it CAN be done, you just will have to wait a long time for that. He then said "Forget it" (whew!).
>>
>>So, just curious, what would you have to say about that? Also, if anyone has actually done that, how it was done? To me, it is a lot of work because if the Messagebox was "Do you want to Delete this record Y/N", a Refresh()/TableUpdate() has to take place (Refresh() works weird sometimes), then having to make sure the next record would be able to allow enable/disable certain buttons, all that.
>>
>>Chuck