>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.