>>>The fact that Refox can decompile without requiring access to the "runtime library" contradicts your statement. Even more telling is that FPDOS .FXPs will run in the FPW environment, and vise-versa.
>>
>>No it doesn't. You posted no evidence to this, just speculation. It only proves that Refox is aware of what the tokens mean. Nothing else. In fact, I took a version of Refox that was produced before VFP 6.0. I took a simple fxp file produced by 6.0 containing nothing that wasn't in the language prior to 2.6 and it worked fine.
>>
>>You can choose to believe this or not. I really don't care.
>>
>
Tom,

>Why is it that all computer science students end up writing a compiler as a required assignment and never an interpreter? Not that it matters, but anyway...

My theory (and it's nothing more) is that it helps give them a better understanding of the how and why things work. Don't take this for any more than a theory.

I've got a friend who's a Professor of Computer Science at a nearby university (the same one I attended when I studied Computer Science, BTW). I can ask him, if you'd like.

>Another why (sounding like the averave 3 year old) does ReFox chop off all reserved words and leave you with the short four letter version? I hate reading anything that looks like that!

Probably (again a guess), in reversing the process, they use the tokens in a similar manner. The difference being that the tokens can be used as an address (offset) in a table. By limiting the reserved words to 4 bytes plus the integer token, all they have to do is multiply the token by 8 to find the offset of the token their table and the reserved word would be found by adding four to that (or something like that).