>>>>When I write the code I will never have the problem of using the m.dot or not using the m.dot. My coding convention uses the above rules. However, when we use classes that the community has written now we could have potential naming conflicts between variables and fields. So having the compiler enforce the rules is preferable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Just want to point out that the Hungarian naming convention isn't infallible. While it's a bit of a stretch, it's certainly possible to have a field name lOrange and a variable named loRange. I haven't gone hunting for other examples, since one makes the point, but I'll bet there are others that are plausible.
>>>
>>>In my view, VFP developers should always use mdot where there's any chance of ambiguity. That's even more important for tool writers since they have no control over the naming of fields in tables their users create.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>To avoid ambiguitiy as much as possible I tend to use objects instead of simple variables. An object with the same name as a field can be used without m. as long as you reference any of the object members. It also provides you a level for extension methods that can be very useful in daily coding life.
>>

>>CREATE TABLE Test (loTest C(10))
>>INSERT INTO Test Values ("Field")
>>LOCAL loTest AS Label
>>loTest = NEWOBJECT("Label")
>>loTest.Caption = "Label text"
>>MESSAGEBOX(loTest)
>>MESSAGEBOX(loTest.Caption)
>>

>>Therefore I use classes for repetitive work like for counters or strings:
>>

>>* Instead of 
>>LOCAL lnCounter
>>lnCounter = 0
>>lnCounter = lnCounter + 1
>>Messagebox(TRANSFORM(lnCounter))
>>* it is better to do
>>LOCAL loCounter AS Counter OF Utils.vcx
>>loCounter = NEWOBJECT("Counter","Utils.vcx")
>>loCounter.DoAdd()
>>Messagebox(loCounter.Value_toString)
>>

>>
>
>I would do Messagebox(m.loCounter.Value_toString). That would eliminate any risk of conflict with a table alias/fieldname locounter.value_tostring.
>*

and you get a tiny performance boost for free. Who doesn't want free speed boosts?