Hi!

>Vlad,
>
>>Hi, Jim!
>>
>>Well, I certainly agree with you, but think on this from another side. Would you leave in the wishes list a wish like "Please, improve VFP 7 a bit!"??? I guess no, because such wish is too generic.
>
>Definitely such wishes offer nothing and so I would say they can go without impact.
>

Te one you given an example (wish #522) is a such wish, though I would not remove it because, there are also a few nice real ideas.

>>
>>I think this kind of wish (like error messages improving) should also be more specific and split to several wish entries - one for each issue. This way at least MS guys will be sure they correctly understood what is needed to improve for develoeprs.
>
>If 'one for each issue' means, really, one for each message, then I do not agree. I look at existing wish #522 and its comments and I think that it gets the correct message across and the comments reinforce as well as add detail.

I still thinking that such wishes most probably would not be reviewed by Mcrosoft. The reason is a TIME required to analize it, and another reason is incomplete description of what is really needed in the wish (too abstract). For example, I REALLY disaree with the comment about adding ability to see what user currently locked record, because it is very hard to implement in current bouds of VFP.

>I have no problem if people *do* enter a separate wish for a specific error message too, but I also think that it is asking too much to REQUIRE specificity on an issue like this. After all, there are probably 250+ error messages and the issue is generic across many of them.
>

I agree with you, however, think: MS still REQUIRES to go through ALL wishes and determine what should be improved.

Instead, we can create a LIST of all error messages and tell what message and how it should be improved. This, to my mind, will give much more help than wishes like wish #522. The wish #522 souns like "Please, improve VFP 7 a bit!" without much details how.

Wish says: "Please, make error messages more informative".
MS says: we already made a few changes in VFP8 beta to make some error messages more informative. Is this enough? If not, what elese we should improve and how?

Just put youself on place of MS VFP team guy and think how you would interpret such wish as developer. THINK - they constantly working with C++ stuff and have little or even no idea at all how VFP is used in real life. WHO will hint them WHAT error messages should be improved?

Jim, if you have time, I would recommen for this issue establish teh Wiki WEB page with a list of error messages and invite everobody to add there comments about what error messages should be improved and how. And PLEASE, add there comment to do not put there bogus wishes, like displaying user name of user currently locking record. Explain that thing that goes far beyond VFP capabilities (inter-computer communication on the system level) require really a lot of time to implement and would cause such changes in VFP that it is completely not benefitia to implement such feature.

To illustrate above, just gpo through wishes and look what are implemented and what are not. You'll understand after that, statustically, what wishes have more chances to be implemented and what have very little chance. I think 1/4 of the wisheshave <10% chance to be implemented, eitehr because way of description or because they're just bogus or require too much work compare to the benefit that feature gives.

For above reason, as well, it would be REALLY good to hear ANY feedback from the MS VFP team, so we could alo take out wishes that MS would never implement for certain reasons. AUUUU, Ken, Jim, Randy or somebody else - is above possible at all?