>>>>>BTW, thanks for your series with Ed on WSH. I copied the whole series for myself and our "utilities guru". I'm sure we'll make good use of that in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>Jay,
>>>>
>>>>Speaking for both of us (Ed and myself), you're welcome. Speaking for myself, always learn things working with someone who's as knowledgable as Ed. The depth and breadth of his knowledge computers (both hardware and software) is almost beyond belief. It was certainly the case with the WSH series.
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>I know how valuable info I've clipped from Ed's emails on hardware issues has been for our staff! I'm a software guy. Hardware interests me only when it works. <g> So, I defer to him in those areas.
>>>
>>>I bet it was an experience to work with him on that.
>>>
>>Jay,
>>
>>Yeah, it was. What generally happened was that I'd do the first draft and send it to Ed. He'd add stuff to it and send it back. Then I'd edit it and add stuff and send it back for approval. Usually, my second go at it was making our two writing styles mesh. I tend more towards short sentences. Almost Ernest Hemingway like. He tends to do a stream of consiciousness. Sort of a technological James Joyce.< s > So more than anything else, after my original draft, Ed beefed it up and I smoothed it out.
>>
>>A while back, I was thinking about writing a Win32 for Foxheads type white paper. I talked to Ed about working with me. I had been thinking I could knock it out in 40 or 50 pages. When I asked Ed how many pages he had in mind, he replied, "Oh, we might be able to get by with around 400, but probably more like 5 or 600."
>>
>>I think that story kind of sums things up nicely.< g >

Jay,

>You have me chuckling! I hadn't really thought of the dynamic of actually creating the series. But recalling the different styles, that makes sense. The resulting style, I'd have to say, combined the best of both and expressed a depth and sense of context that one doesn't often gain from the message board.

I take that as a very high compliment and I'm sure that Ed would too.

>I've not used the Win32 API directly. We have xplat Win/Mac software, so generic is good.
>
>I guess access to those services is getting more flexible:
>
>We're getting some, such as encrpytion, as a part of VFP.
>Through the use of some 3rd party routines to create STRUCTs we can access many services through VFP.
>I suppose that one can create a C# COM component also and interact that way.
>
>I guess that's as much as question as an answer.
>
The only problems with STRUCTs in VFP is when you have embedded pointers. It's true that it's a PITA even when they don't. Fortunately, folks like Ed and Christof Lange and some workaround code that handles both cases rather easily.