Oh, Chuck.

You are assuming that it is very easy to create FileMaker Pro (a mighty assumption!). However, there are no other pieces of software out there that do the same thing, and offer such ease-of-use. My proof: You and I have both decided to be FileMaker developers -- as have many others. Since you are making more assumptions than I am, Occam's Razor says that we can ASSUME I'm right.

I would also love to be able to send multiple attachments, but the fact that we can't doesn't mean there is an evil plot between FileMaker and the plug-in developers (another assumption of yours).

What it probably means (admittedly, an assumption on my part), is that when FileMaker has been performing the balancing act of providing best value to its customers and providing the best return to its shareholders, multiple attachments has ended up on the cutting room floor.

Did you do a feature request yet?
 <http://www.filemaker.com/company/contact/feature_request.html>

You sound unhappy. Maybe you should try a piece of software that isn't so evil?

Paul 



--
Paul Spafford
FileMaker Database Superhero,
Spafford Data Solutions

Tel: 613 838 9956
www.paulspafford.com
www.ottawafilemakerdeveloper.com
www.fmlayoutmode.com






On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Chuck Pelto wrote:

> Heh...
> 
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:56 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
>>> It would be simple enough to allow it to pursue all paths and add each to the out-bound e-mail.
>> 
>> 
>> Since none of us are programmers at FileMaker Inc., none of us have any idea how simple that would be. Looks simple -- and it would certainly be simple for us to use -- but when the software has a lot of moving parts, they have to make sure nothing else gets broken when they add each "simple" feature.
> 
> Any of us program in C++? 
> 
> It should not be very difficult for FMI to implement this improvement. So, with Occam's Razor, it falls back to my assertion....
> 
> We'll give the users what WE want to give them WHEN we want to give it to them.
> 
>> 
>> They also have to make sure that they are working on the features that will bring the best return, and keep the company profitable. I'll bet that's not easy.
> 
> What's this? You suggest they can only work on one improvement at a time?
> 
> I doubt that very much.
> 
>> 
>> However, if you want a place to let FMI know how you feel:
>> <http://www.filemaker.com/company/contact/feature_request.html>
>> 
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Paul Spafford
>> FileMaker Database Superhero,
>> Spafford Data Solutions
>> 
>> Tel: 613 838 9956
>> www.paulspafford.com
>> www.ottawafilemakerdeveloper.com
>> www.fmlayoutmode.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Chuck Pelto wrote:
>> 
>>> That's on crummy analogy, Richard. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Richard S. Russell wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2011 Mar 31, at 6:50, Chuck Pelto wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So it's another one of those FMI 'Well give the users what we want WHEN we want to give it to them."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great....
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 9 women gestating for 1 month apiece do not produce a baby. Even ignoring all the OTHER demands on FMI's programmer time, some things proceed using serial circuits rather than parallel.
>>> 
>>> The scriptstep even allows you put in multiple paths. It would be simple enough to allow it to pursue all paths and add each to the out-bound e-mail.
>>> 
>>> Instead, I have to send two e-mails.
>>> 
>>> Face it....
>>> 
>>> ....it's kludge.
>>