Hi Martin.

>Here you are doing a wrong assumption. To implement with/endwith the compiler HAVE to create a reference (a variable) anyways, so there is no gain at all. That's why I said this is pure syntactic sugar.

Ah, yes... I should give you the reason (mmm, not sure of my english there, "Te tengo que dar la razón") internally a variable will be created, so my point was wrong, I guess too much sugar clouded my judgement <g>

>This is not the same in VFP where the interpreter can (and indeed does) benefit from creating a local reference on the fly and doesn't have to parse all the hierarchy again (and creating a local variable will incur in a -really negligible- resource increase. This does not apply to compile code.

Yes, I understand this difference.

>
>Again this is not a religious issue, but I guess most C# developers wouldn't want an additional keyword in the language just for a very small -and debatable- value.

Pansies. Fox has "thousands" of keywords and I wouldn't mind more <g>

>
>As you mentioned before that some things in your code are just pointing to a structural problem, I also think that a frequent need of shortcutting references like this are uncovering some code smells, like deep chaining (most probably due to high coupling) or bloated methods. I never noticed a real need of shortcutting a reference to a temp variable that was not a sign of refactoring needed.

>
>As always, it is nice to debate with you... <s>
>
>Best regards,

I agree with you, but on the other hand I still think that a with statement is more elegant (sweeter <g>) than repeated use of a variable, but you are right, aesthetics are not enough of a reason for changing the compiler

Thanks Martin