>Ed,
>
>> VFP is not the best environment for a linked-list solution; surprise; ... Nancy took the position of 'this is something VFP doesn't do well; C# is a better choice'; the same applies in the other direction as well.
>
>Ok, I'll take umberance at the above statement. bait.. bait.. *bg*
>
>I used a binary tree example in the PTF-OOP book as one example of how advanced data structures could now easily be created in VFP.
>

Dave,

No baiting intended - I'll certainly agree that VFP has the ability to create a class which contains a property which can be an object pointer, and thus can create various lists. I'll go so far as to agree that construction of digraphs is possible - but that the overhead involved, when compared to languages with a native pointer capability, is unacceptable.

I'll stand by the statement that this is not something VFP does well - not that it doesn't have the ability to do, but that the work to implement it, and the overhead involved, is excessive. I've written lexical parsers in VFP, too, but break out C++ and lexx the minute I have to do it 'for real'.

And yes, anyone whose taken much more than CS101 should know what a tree or linked list is, and anyone with a topology course should recognize a digraph.