Hi!

>SNIP
>>
>>...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.
>
>While I agree that TODAY it seems impossible, I still would like to see THAT kind of wish left in. It is not a general wishy-washy wish - it is specific enough.
>The reason that I feel it deserves to be left in is that both VFP and other MS "platforms" continue to evolve, and maybe some day there WILL be some need for some (other) MS product to be able to do this. When that day comes, then maybe VFP can benefit and this wish can be realized.
>

I agree with you. For that same reason most wishes should still remain there. Anyway, too generic wishes for sure require much more comments (guess I'll do them by self if not done by others :-))))

>>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?
>
>Some time today I will start a thread to try to 'demonstrate' what MAY be a good 'middle ground' about this specific problem.
>

I saw that thread. Well, this is a good starting point, BUT, UT thread is not very good facility for such kind of discussion. That is why I proposed to use Wiki page for this purpose. This way you will have all information on a single page along with all comments from others. Also, thread would quickly go out of user's attention, when Wiki page have much better chanses to be visited and edited.

Anyway, as you wish :)

>>
>>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.
>
>Well, as I said earlier, I agree that it's 'bogus' today, but maybe not in the future. I don't think that any well-described wish should be dropped just because it is impossible or hard-to-do TODAY. I could accept MS making that judgement, but not someone like you or me.
>

I agree with you, as I said. I do not try to do any judgement. I just want MORE COMMENTS, to make wish more concrete and not too generic or bogus. Once wish poster comes to REAL implementation details of that wish, poster will judge by self remove that wish or not, and would see if it possible to implement and with what effort < s >

>>
>>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.
>
>I recognize that there are far too many wishes that are very poorly expressed and that this makes their chance of implementation virtually NIL.
>Some day I plan to go through and add a comment (because then I know the originator gets notification of such comments) suggesting that better details be added. At this point it is the only way I can think of to try to get such wishes improved or dropped (by the originator).
>

I plan to do that too :-) But first, need to clean up the list to remove duplicates and implemented in VFP8 features to do not waste time.

>>
>>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?
>
>YES!!! - this would be very good indeed.
>

Any idea how to force MS to do that? I just though it would be good to send an open email to MS from UT site members...