>>>I was going to modify it to point out that Andrew did NOT say that there was a difference in the way classes & .PRGs were compiled, what he speculated was the lack of compilation (tokenizing) was for some reason not allowed in classes.<
>>
>>His original statment
>>
>>>>I expect it is because class files are binaries, and the & command is inline, hence only works in the "interpreted" .prg files.. ie. & means "dont compile it because it will be different sometimes".. which in a file which is compiled (ie a class file) is illegal.<<
>>
>>says .prgs are interpreted and classes are compiled and that & would therefore not work in a class.
OK, I stand corrected on that point, I missed the first part, hence my not understanding why he may be so wrong.

I see what I missed now - but I don't think Nancy put her case in the correct manner, what one person considers acceptable bluntness, others see as arrogant rudeness - especially when the comments on say you are talking crap & don't go on to say why. There was nothing to explain to Andrew (or myself) as to why he was wrong, & it's lowered my opinion of her considerably.