>> Necessary? No, I don't think many of the glitches would fall into that category.
>
>Sorry, I meant 'necessary evils'. As in: 'We could add this nice little function that does your laundry and triggers your coffee maker so that the brown stuff from heaven is ready just when you get up in the morning - or we could devote the resources to fixing this particular glitch instead, but our product manglers won't like this as it is not a new feature that they can cross off on a list.'
>
>From what I've seen over the years the MS criteria for elevating a bug fix to a feature can be pretty strict, like a requirement to show that the bug causes significant monetary loss for customers (or significant loss of face for MS). At other times you simply post a bug description with repro code in a public MS newsgroup and a short time later you get a message 'We have been able to reproduce the problem. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. It will be fixed in the next release.'

I'm sure that Microsoft appreciates all code that demonstrates a problem as simply as possible. Identifying that something is a problem is only half the battle. Reproducing it is another 40%. The last 10% is fixing it, but of course, that can take 90% of the time! Me, I usually attribute a problem I run into as something I've probably done wrong (or didn't completely understand). If it doesn't cause a flat out crash, and I can work around it, I usually can live with it.

The VFP team does a fantastic job of getting things done with their limited resources given them. Don't let me stand in the way of anything you feel makes VFP better from getting fixed, I just don't hold out expectations that everything found will ever get fixed.