Hi Franco,

There original statement by Terry was "There are also a lot of things that cannot be done with .NET and a lot of markets where .NET is unsuitable." By injecting the word "markets", he seems to be talking about "solutions", or end-results. The user of the application doesn't care if you used macro substitution to achieve the final result.


>I haven't said that it's necessary, only that it cannot be done (AFAIK).
>And I find very comfortable (in VFP) to know that if you need to do macro substitution, you can easily do it.
>for example:
>

>LOCAL a, b, iloop
>a="thisform.text"
>iloop=3
>FOR ixi=1 TO iloop
>	b=a+TRANSFORM(ixi)
>	&b..backcolor=255
>endfor

>
>how can be done in .NET? (consider that iloop is a variable)

I know you are just offering an example, but even in VFP I would approach that in a different manner. I would come up with a solution that did not depend on the name of the objects themselves.

In .NET, you can bind just about any property of a control to another object. For example, lets say you have 10 textBoxes on the form, and on 5 of them you want to change the background color when a certain condition arises. On those 5 controls, you can bind the backgroundcolor to the property of another object (a form property, for example). I'd find a way to use that functionality to achieve the result, where just changing the property of the form would automatically change the textboxes. Without a loop.

It's an interesting question; I might play with it this weekend.

>
>
>This can be done in .NET, never done yet, but read this paper:
>
>http://www.west-wind.com/presentations/dynamicCode/DynamicCode.htm
>
>Again, it's not "easy" like VFP, but can be done.

Thanks for the link; I'll read it.