>It is good to see that there is very little performance hit by using m. for variables. I normally reference memvars in this way out of habit, but I find that it also makes my code more readable and eliminates possible conflicts with a field of the same name.
>
>Elmer
Here is the test on Windows 95 192RAM:
local i, ab, lnSec
lnSec =seconds()
for i=1 to 10000000
ab=1
next
?seconds()- m.lnSec
clear all
lnSec =seconds()
for i=1 to 10000000
m.ab=1
next
?seconds()- m.lnSec
First test - 14.115 sec.
Second test with m. - 16.743sec.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
My Blog