>Hey, Craig,
>
>I think I pretty much said the same thing <g> ...the VFP report writer will likely always be a subset of CRW. CRW grew as a tool from 1996 through this year - that's too far to start playing catch-up.
>
>I have to admit, I'm actually baffled that they left the RW alone for years, and then decided to beef it up. I hate to use this expression, but IMO it's too little, too late.

I don't think so. Ken has hinted at the changes in his previous newletters. I think you'll be impressed with what the VFP team has done.


>
>Obviously, it's up to MS as far as what features they put into VFP. I personally would have lobbied to beef up the SQL language. It is frustrating to try many of Joe Celko's SQL examples, only to learn that VFP's version of SQL doesn't support it but SQL Server does. Maybe VFP9 will correct this.

It's difficult to say without knowing what you would like changed. However, there are some changes coming to the SQL in VFP 9.0.


>
>Kevin