>>>>I wonder how much memory we are talking about though? 100k? We are only talking about values like "LOOK_AT_THIS_COOL_DEFINE" and stuff like that. Maybe it comes down to how memory is assigned and it does save a bunch, but I'm thinking it's not really that much.
>>>>
>>>Hard to say. Try this test:
>>>

>>>#define CRLF chr(13)+chr(10)
>>>
>>>local lcStr
>>>
>>>for i=1 to 100000
>>>  lcStr = CRLF
>>>next
>>>
>>>vs.
>>>
>>>local lcCRLF, lcStr
>>>
>>>lcCRLF = chr(13) + chr(10)
>>>for i=1 to 100000
>>>  lcStr = lcCRLF
>>>next
>>>

>>
>>Why would the second example use significantly more memory? You're only creating one variable (albeit 100000 times). More cycles, yes ; more memory? no. Of course a smart compiler would probably only execute the 'lcStr=lcCRLF' once anyway :-}
>>
>>Regards,
>>Viv
>
>Actually the second example uses fewer cycles than the first. Granted we're talking nano-seconds of performance (but then again, we're talking about one variable's worth of memory), but it took the constant 1.2 seconds longer than the variable to execute a loop of 10,000,000 iterations.
>
>Note that this is a specific exception because the constant becomes an expression and not a value. So it makes sense to me since the constant has to execute two function calls (CHR(13) and CHR(10)) plus the concatenation while the variable only has to execute a memory lookup.

You're right of course. I was thinking in terms of simple string assignment and forgot about the overhead of evaluating the CHR()'s each time.
Regards,
Viv