>>>>>>>>>>lo=eval("m.toThis." + m.lcObjName)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's I believe what I tried. But may be I did put mismatched quotes... I'll re-try.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>UPDATE. Yes, it worked. I had a very bad headache the whole day yesterday at work, may be I just could not concentrate... My colleague told me he also had it and my son did, so I think it's weather related...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>lo=GETPEM(m.toThis,m.lcObjName)
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought about it too. But anyway, evaluate works and it seems good enough for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It work ( slower ),
>>>>>>but it is formally wrong when the object reference is static
>>>>>>as in :
>>>>>>"m.toThis."
>>>>>
>>>>>Could you please elaborate more? Also GetPem doesn't have object reference as a return type, that's why I thought it would not work.
>>>>
>>>>??? why ???
>>>>If GETPEM didn't return an object reference, what it could return?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>I mean you this
>>>>

>>>>* this it is VFP static code and then it is faster
>>>>r1=GETPEM(m.toThis,m.lcObjName)
>>>>* this return the same value,
>>>>* but when someone uses unnecessary dynamic code, it do a mistake
>>>>r2=eval("m.toThis." + m.lcObjName)
>>>>? "this print true",r1=r2
>>>>

>>>
>>>So everything done before VFP 6 was a mistake? GETPEM was added in VFP6.
>>
>>I think he meant a mistake in terms of speed
>
>No. It is mistake.
>Same concept is applied to m. prefix, read a variable without m. is mistake.
>
>Speed up is a side effect.

Fabio,

I do not see why the eval() would be a mistake. But then, it's Friday