>>>>You're missing my point. You fail to show that your rule is better.
>>>
>>>Your rule is simply incorrect... There was a thread about the same problem in Visual FoxPro Club in Russian about month ago. You may try to find it.
>>
>>I'm sorry Nadya, but it's not enough to say that it's is incorrect, you've to prove that.
>I've just posted a test result in reply to Elmer. Anyway, here it is:
>

>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

>
>14.115sec. vs. 16.743sec.

It's only 2 sec's per 10,000,000 iterations.

Here's my results for the same test

5.324 vs 5.535