>>>>> Also include m. at least for performance issue in VFP7 :
>>>>
>>>>Hi Cetin,
>>>>Can you tell me what sort of performance issue is involved with the "m."?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>If you don't include m. in for loops VFP7 is slower than previous versions (documented somewhere).
>>>Cetin
>>
>>Hi Cetin,
>>
>>
>>I started another thread 647967to ask more about this, and people over there seem to say that using the m. is slower (someone even said 1/3). But Craig ran a test that seemed to indicate that using the m. in a for loop was negligently slower.
>>Now I'm really interested in this subject.
>
>Bill,
>I'm the liar of docs :) I didn't run any tests (and even can't think of a good test that could say clearly say this is true or false). I read the fine prints more than other parts and I clearly remember this was somewhere in docs, maybe KB. Unfortunately I can't locate it once more. Personally blindly thinking it's true as I remember it was coming from fox team with a test showing the case. Till I can prove wrong myself I believe it (personally:)
>Cetin

Cetin,
Do you remember if it was the m. in the body of the loop or the loop itself that was the issue?

for m.ln1 = 1 to 10
  .....
endfor

or 

for ln1 = 1 to 10
  m.ln2 .....
endfor