>Mike,
>
>>Honestly the m. doesn't interfere with readability in the least.
>
>In your eyes it doesn't, in mine it obfuscates the code, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the point.
>
>>I've done SQL commands against million plus record tables where the use of m. made noticeable differences.
>
>Where it makes a perceivable difference in performance to the end-user m. should be employed.
>
>In a loop like this it's useless (IMHO)
>
>

>...
>ldBase = date() - 1
>for i = 1 to 7
>   laDOWCache[i] = cdow( ldBase + i )
>endfor
>...
>

>
>I don't spend 100% of my time in VFP so I prefer to keep as much of my code visually consistent across all the languages I use.
>
>I also obsess on performance. Primarily on the enduser experience performance and secondarily on developer performance. If you consume an hour of development time to wring out 0.001 seconds of execution time improvement the enduser has to perform that operation 3.6 million times before it pays back the company the added development cost. Which equates to the old adage, penny wise and pound foolish.
>
>Feel free to type mdots all day long, I prefer to only type them when they really make a difference.

iN FACT i DO. yOU ARE REALLY MAKING NO seNSE to say that ThINgs are obfuscated. Humans can read things relatively easily. m. is easily ignored by the human brain.

There is an add-on by Christof which shows the memvars in a routine when you hit m. - that's very handy. m. does not take time to type - so it's not pound foolish at all.