George,

>DD,
>>
>>I think you're moving in the correct direction.
>>
>>Let me ask you a question, also springing from a recent ..erhh.. "active" thread <g>. The one about the CDX size changes.
>>
>>You don't suppose that the changes to the building of the leaf nodes in the CDX was purely by chance, do you? No, of course you don't. Then why? Well, ostensibly to make the CDXs more stable, which in and of itself isn't a bad deal. Yet... If you're going to nudge this little lady into the harsh spotlight of co-existence with SQL then shouldn't you clean out the proverbial closets first?
>>
>>These things don't happen in a vacuumn, now do they.. < eg >
>
>No they certainly don't. Just to add one more "log to the fire", if I wanted to assure VFP's future, if I wanted to assure growth (and sales), if I wanted to put to rest all of the negativity, then I certainly would go in the direction I've indicated.
>
>Now again, and I'm going to mention this in every post on this thread, I don't know anything more than anyone outside the Fox team about this. It's pure, unadulterated guesswork on my part.

Right.. Me too. However, I think that this is where all these years (since dBase II on CP/M) of watching the product(s) change, grow, mature and so forth gives one what I'd think is a pretty good 'sense' of things. That's what makes me laugh about all the folks who get themselves so worked up over the future of VFP. Look, at some point (like you and me) it's gonna die. Until then (hopefully like you and me) it's going to continue to 'learn' (add features and capabilities) and 'grow'.

It is such a no-brainer that this in itself is what makes me laugh at the "sky is falling" crowd. Phhtt.. Thanks for telling me once again, like I've heard for at least the last 15 years, that Fox is going to die, now please keep quiet so I can get some of the mountain of Fox-related work done! <g>