OK, I see the advantage of using this syntax. However, for UKService, assuming he is currently using TXBrowse():New(), he would have to change all 200 of these to the TBrow() syntax. If he were to change the xbrowse.ch file, then he only needs to make one change.
Also, you refer to TXBrow():New() but TXBrow is a function so the proper syntax is just TXBrow() is that not correct? Further it only seems to accept a single codeblock as a parameter, so I don't understand how this is used.
TXBrows():new(oWnd) // not TXBrow()
It is easier to change "TXBrowse(" to "TXBrows(" in one stroke in all sources with a single operation with any program editor. Anyway we are changing to what FWH recommends.
Changing xbrowse.ch does not help. It calls functions. FWH library never internally uses TXBrowse():new() to construct xbrowse. Even internally it calls only TXBrows():New()
I can assure you that this system is quite robust and works perfectly.
Use either command syntax or TXBrows():New().
You can use any derived class for the whole application or different derived c;asses fpr different browses, everything works smoothly.
CaveAt: Resources need to be changed.