Mike,
I see where you want to go, unfortunately because of the rules imposed by the VFP team (and rightly so, IMO), I don't see us getting there.

In order to access properties of objects that are in and of themselves properties of a parent object, you first have to call the _Get method of the parent object's property. This could lead to the side-effects that Ken (and indirectly Calvin) posted about.

Your suggestion of simply listing the properties gleaned from the Typelib raises the question of what would be used as the values for the properties and how would the developer signal the debugger that a specific property should actually be queried for its value.

I just entered a new entry in the Toledo Wish list, ID 582. It requests that Intellisense be available when a developer is defining Watch variables. I think this is a compromise between what you are asking for and the rules that the VFP Team want to impose. Your comments would be appreciated.

Regards.

>Hi Paul,
>
>(snip)
>
>> You see it as a bug in the debugger, I'm sure they'll see it as a bug in the documentation. ;-)
>
>Yes, I'm sure you're right. That's why stressed that the issue is not whether this is a request for a bug fix or an enhancement. The point is that for some (and perhaps many) of us, this is a very significant feature.
>
>>
>>>Speaking of other COM debuggers, it is my understanding that VB6 has no such restrictions on its ability to display and navigate COM objects, so I don't see how your assertion can be correct about the impossibility of providing a comparable level of COM support in VFP. As you noted, Intellisense and the Object Browser are
>>
>>I don't think he said it was impossible, just that they didn't want to do it because of (lots of) possible side effects.
>
>I think I addressed that point on several counts. It could be done in just the Watch window, and there could be an option to turn it off if it ever were suspected of causing problems. Presumably, whatever obscure side-effects Ken is hypothetically referring to would be equally an issue for the VB6 debugger. Are you aware of any such problems with that?
>
>>
>>>There is no doubt that VFP's support for ActiveX and OLE Automation is a major strength of the product, and recent enhancements incorporated into VFP 7.0 were a significant and welcome addition to VFP's arsenal. As people become increasingly aware of the importance of COM integration, I think you will hear from more and more who find themselves befuddled by the weaknesses of the VFP Debugger. Among those who have already delved into this area, I'm sure you would find very strong support for the fixes I'm requesting. For those who have not yet gotten into COM, you would be doing them and Microsoft a very great service by fixing these problems before they become a source of further confusion and irritation.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I looked into it, but it's (the debugger not displaying all properties) not a big deal for me. In fact, it would probably bother me more if the debugger caused all sorts of weird (ie. hard to trace) bugs because of it's interaction with a COM object. I really use the Object Browser a lot more for any of my poking around vs. the debugger.
>>
>
>If the present state of affairs is good enough for your purposes, that's great for you. I've looked at the Object Browser and Intellisense, and everything I've seen and heard, including Ken's most recent remarks, confirms that these are static tools, not a substitute for the dynamic capabilities of a reasonable debugger. Such static tools could be replaced by adequate, well-organized, accessible documentation. There is no such functionally equivalent substitute for a dynamic debugger. I certainly concur with you that I would not want "improvements" to the debugger to imply some new source of weird bugs, any more than I want that from Intellisense. Fortunately, though, none of these features really have much bearing on runtime application performance or stability. They do, however, have a lot of effect on programmer productivity.
>
>> I'm glad Ken took the time to talk to Calvin about it (and post a follow up). Interesting stuff...
>
>Yes, I am very appreciative of the attention, and I look forward to any further improvements to come. Thank you, too, for your contributions to the discussion.
>
>Mike