I agree with you Jim,

BUT Ken Levy does'nt seem to see a problem with VFP docs. If he does'nt see it then there's not problem. And perhaps the VFP team is considering that case closed.

But then again is Ken Levy the real person that should be involved at that level? Last I heard Ken Levy was responsible for Marketing. Should'nt it be Esther Fan's or John Walker (I took those names from the Fox wiki) job to come in here to discuss about the documentation?


>Don't go losing interest yet... to me ANY dialog about improving the content of the VFP documentation is worthwhile. You just never know when the right combination of words will click with one of our VFP Team frequenters and get some more (it has been improving some last 2 versions) improvements included.
>
>cheers
>
>
>>Well, yes. I've worked through the issues the best I can and I've tried to support other people who've dealt with the same issues and from that experience I can tell you it would be helpful if those common issues were in the basic VFP documention. Yes, I could list those issues on my web site (or write an article for a mag), but, I'm pretty sure this would not reach a great deal of the developers who would benefit from it. Just my opinion - I'm not losing any sleep over any of this and rapidly loosing interest in the whole topic...
>>
>>>I'm not sure what problems developers have had. I do use Interop in quite a few places with Quickbooks, Word, Etc. I haven't tried using a Fox COM object though so I am unfamiliar with what problems are there.
>>>
>>>Have you personally experienced issues with .NET and VFP COM Objects ?
>>>
>>>Rodman