Hi George,

Please pardon me for jumping in. I just wanted to tell you that I also want Microsoft to change VFP's behavior regarding the 'automatic' openfile dialog. And as far as I can see on the rating in the wish list, so do many others. I have extensive experience in many different programming languages, and I find it difficult to believe that adding such a feature will be more than an hour's work. By adding a system variable which can be set by a SET OPENDIALOG ON/OFF command, VFP can either open the openfile dialog automatically, or throw an error. Letting ON be the default, everyone would be happy.

Have you never experienced that one of your customers has deleted or renamed an important file inadvertantly? If so, wouldn't it be nice to get an error you can trap? Yes, you can all sorts of checks, like file(). But why, when the perfect, and in many cases the only real, solution would be to get an error from VFP?

>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean here. Frankly, I don't care if the Fox team changes this or not. I simply don't want them to use resources that could best be directed elsewheres.
>>
>>
>>That is your opinion and i respect it, my opinion is that i don't care much about the report designer changes in VFP9, i would rather have this little productivity feature added, but that is my personal opinion.
>
>The thing is that a lot of other people do care about report designer enhancements. Personally, I don't view this as "a productivity feature."
>
>>
>>>What does it mean to me if they change this behavior? Nothing! My code works as it's intended. What does it mean to some one else? Perhaps a lot, since it may break existing code.
>>
>>
>>This would not affect my code as well, but for new development it will mean less typing. They could implement this as a SYS() setting or a Set DefaultDialog ON|OFF so it wouldn't break existing code.
>>
>>
>>>I've taken the responsibility to deliver a product that works as I intend. If I use this "feature" who's at fault if it doesn't work the way I want, me or the Fox team?
>>
>>
>>Again, i am 100% in agreement with you, my code works because i know of this feature and coded around it. But it would be nice to have an option to turn it off.
>>
>>What wrong do you see in this request ? Other that you don't care about it.
>
>I'd simply rather that the Fox team concentrate on other issues. The real question here is, "What's the difference?" An error still would occur regardless if they eliminated the feature or gave us an option to turn it off or on.