>Calvin in his blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/calvin_hsia/archive/2004/12/14/301282.aspx) clearly explained that why "m." should be used. He also stated that using m. is a way to make code easier to read, easier to maintain, and faster.
>
>It is indefensible, if not unforgivable, that code of many VFP built-in tools written in VFP does not observe the m. rule. These tools will be used in all VFP programmers' work. Nobody will be aware of the existence of the variable "tctable" in VFP's RI Builder when he runs it on a table with exactly the same field name, particularly in tables migrated from FPW apps. It does not make sense to expect users to rename fields before running the tools.
>
>
Ben,

The one, and only reason, to use such conventions is to make the code more readable. From my POV, regardless of whatever minor performance improvements occur, it's the person who writes the code that makes that judgement. No one else.