Hi Fabio,

>>I've got trouble with this as there are quite a few arbitrary rules when to use or not to use m. Those who apply m. themselves have different rules where and when to apply them as wel. Some say it is not neccesary at a variable assignment while other say you must be consistent and apply them where you can. It does not make sense to me. I just don't use them unless neccesary for whatever reason.

>Sorry, but you are mistaking, the convention of the names, performance or any other thing, does not have any importance, it is a VFP rule.

Can you explain me, why it is a VFP rule. I never did spot this in any MS documentation and never saw it explained as a rule. VFP does not care whether you use m. or not. Of course VFP itself has internal rules which determines whether to use a field or variable with the same name, but this in itself does not make it a rule.

>Ill-fatedly, all the documentation of VFP, programs and articles suffers from laziness and approximation, and the brace laziness and approximation they diffuse more quickly than a virus.

>Walter, I have confidence that you do not take it as I face staff, the my esteem in yours confront remain unchanged.

Not sure what you're saying here (as a dutchman trying to translate italian-english :) ), but I take this you strongly disagree with my standpoint. I have no problem with that. You're free to disagree, but my standpoint is where it is now and is not going to change in the near future.


Walter,