On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/25/10 9:48 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Steve Ellenoff<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I think Stephen was being intentionally sarcastic.. :) >> ------------ >> >> Just the facts. > > That VFP is buggy because it is very dynamic? That's an opinion not a fact. --------------
Sorry but the compiler not following the code to the class/method and determining your code is good enough to be placed in an exe but that when it run it realizes you are missing a param you consider acceptable? I am not talking about macro substitution here just cold hard code. That I consider a bug with the product. I like it when a change is made to a function and you re-build it the compiler will tell you that the function was also called from these other places as well and needs to be fixed or the method needs to be overloaded to fit both versions. Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
