>>>>>Thanks george,
>>>>>
>>>>>will this SESSION statement result in a smaller
>>>>>memory footprint?
>>>>>
>>>>Erwin,
>>>>
>>>>I'd think so, but haven't really checked. FWIW, the next lightest is a line object. So even before the session class was introduced it wasn't the lightest.
>>>
>>>Actually, the session class comes in around the middle of the pack in terms of memory footprint. The real reason to use it is as you said, fewer PEMs. This makes for better performance when using late binding (fewer entries in the VTABLE).
>>>
>>>You can make the VTABLE even smaller by making all the PEMs you don't need hidden. As Craig said, this has been done for you in VFP 7 but it is doable in VFP 6 with a little work.
>>
>>Yep, guess so (I wrote that before I hit refresh to update the cache).:-)
>
>I figured I needed a new one. The other was taken while I was speaking to a VMP developers about SDT integration. Not a very light-hearted subject.
>
>I cropped this one from one where I am sitting with my family at Magic Kingdom, DisneyWorld. Based on that, there are many reasons to smile. :-)

I'm sure.:-) I thought, however, that it would be the new one that's on the comments page. Don't think it is. That's why I made the remark, I saw that one. You're smiling there too.< s >

OK, Mark (McCasland), when are you gonna get an updated one?:-)