>Hello all
>
>This is by way of a general discussion and query. It has long come to my notice that many of you use the memory var m. thing, even the most esteemed of our experts. Some years ago I read an article about this and I wish I knew how to get hold of it.
>
>The gist of the argument was essentially that the m. construct was not necessary and, in some cases, less efficient. For instance, when assigning values to a var, it's no use in distinguishing between a table field and a memory var of the same name, because one always uses "REPLACE" for fields anyway. Of course, if there are a field and var of the same name (and assuming the field's table is currently selected anyway) then it is useful for distinguishing in cases of comparison. But that's the only advantage I can see.
>
>I recall the m. as a throw-back to the old dBASE days and, personally I never use it. Does anyone have an argument for its use? Can anyone put their finger on the article to which I referred?
>
>Just curious
>
Terry,

JMO, but I use Hungarian notation with variables, but not with table field names. This prevents the confusion, especially since Fox will show you the data type in the Command Window. Further, using "m." in the Command Window also shows you the list of previously declared variable, or using the alias of an open table, is sort of limiting.

I've an idea for a tool that might be of use. Since the Intellisense Manager is user configurable, I've thought of creating a tool that will modify it to display, at least, the fields of any open table. Haven't done step one on it, but maybe someone else can take the idea and run with it.< s >