Hi:

That one REALLY hit the spot! (is that the correct phrase?)
Made a small prog to time it inside a LONG loop and it's significantly faster.
Last two months I've been involved in a large C++ project, it's sometimes hard to switch from one toll to another, kinda forget things. :-)

Thanks

>Raul,
>
>You could increase your performance quite a bit by using EVAL() instead of macro substitution.
>
>Try this:
>
>? EVAL(get_var_name_part1() + get_var_name_part2())
>
>
>>>Raul,
>>>
>>>I don't think you understand what the period delimiter does. Basically, it tells the interpeter that it should append whatever is after the . to the end of the value of the variable that you substituted.
>>>
>>>var_value=5
>>>x='var'
>>>? &x._value
>>>
>>>The ? line is the same as doing:
>>>?var_value
>>>
>>>The interpreter just changes the x to var, then appends the _value to it.
>>>
>>
>>Hi:
>>
>> Your example gave me another idea that helped me achieve half of what I wanted.
>> The way you put it I use it a lot, the problem was when the appended part
>> of the variable name is not known beforehand.
>>
>>var_value = 5
>>var_name_part1 = 'var'
>>var_name_part2 = '_value'
>>
>>I was tring:
>> ?&var_name_part1.var_name_part2 hoping VFP would append it.
>>
>>It came out to be:
>> ?&var_name_part1.&var_name_part2
>>
>>Now let's say the parts of the variable name come from functions:
>>
>>var_value = 5
>>
>>function get_var_name_part1()
>> return 'var'
>>
>>function get_var_name_part1()
>> return '_value'
>>
>>I wanted something like:
>> ? &get_var_name_part1() + get_var_name_part2()
>>
>>But it doesn't work. I just wanted to cut down the amount of instructions in a series of FOR and DO WHILE loops. The functions are needed because I can't know beforehand the actual name of the variable.
>>
>>But I'll leave them as they are.
>>var_name = get_var_name_part1() + get_var_name_part2()
>> ? &var_name
>>
>>Thanks.