>>>>Hi Walter,
>>>>
>>>>I was surprised the first time I found that "m." were not used in many VFP's built-in xBase tools, Rick Strahl's utils, your Tax RIBuilder, and many other public domain utilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ben
>>>
>>>Hi Ben,
>>>
>>>why surprise ?
>>>
>>>All MS VFP documentation, don't use the m. prefix.
>>>
>>>If the Bible is mistaken, the disciples learn one mistaken religion.
>>>
>>>Fabio
>>
>>Hey Fabio,
>>Not to that extent. I remember the docs (I confess I don't visit them a lot) used m. quite often.
>
>Search m. into the documentation examples.
>Search m. into xsource code
>then compute useAvariableWithMdotCount/useAvariableCount,
>i think this ratio <<1%.
>
>>OTOH documentation is neverthless another problem in every area - say in .NET it's no different and how much importance is given to that you know (some basic sample on something, you expect it to work right? Wrong.)
>>Cetin
>
>Cetin, in MS the bad habit of being approximated is much diffusing.
>If the documentation of .NET, with the vastness of the environment,
>has the level of VFP, the fate is marked.
>
>In fact, not to case, lately MS has remarkable problems of management of the complexity of the new software. If they will not change road, the destiny will be implacable.
>
>Fabio

From what I see, the .Net documentation is not even close to the VFP documentation level. If in VFP one can learn the product pretty much by reading Help, then in .Net it's an ill-fated attempt. :)