Thanks for your answer.
I just think that average VFP developer would be more happy if PDF output option would be included in VFP9 box - for me it is almost obvious. I did not want to argue or convince you I just listed some reasons why I think so.


>>Hi Craig
>>1. Because VFP9 would be backward comaptible. So new functionality should run with old design. Do you suggest that VFP9 new report designer output options will run only with newly created reports. Remember that my reports run inside VFP without problems.
>
>We'll have to wait until June to find out.
>
>>2. Because during coding such fuctionality - if something has to be changed in VFP internals it can be done only if Microsft VFP team was preparing such functionality. Third party vendor must be waiting for service pack or next version of VFP.
>
>Can you give me an example of what that may be?
>
>>3. It is much more easier create additional funcionality having described
>>in previous point possibilities than coding around black box.
>
>That depends on how well the interfaces to the black box are defined.
>
>>4. VFP team members have more knoledge how VFP internally works than people from outside.
>
>That's true of any product.
>
>>5. I believe that Microsft more carefully test its product.
>
>More carefully than whom?
>
>>6. Compare for example "code refrences tool" out of the VFP8 box with other external search tools that was available before VFP8. The internal tool is far far better.
>
>I don't agree that it was far, far better. PJXSearch by Steve Dingle does pretty much everything the Code References does.