>>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>>I want my textbox tooltip content be equal with Textbox.value at runtime.
>>>>>>how can i do this?
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>* MouseEnter
>>>>>this.ToolTipText = m.this.Value
>>>>>

>>>>
>>>>Thanks Dear Fabi.
>>>>It Solve my problem.
>>>>
>>>>also thanks for Borislav
>>>
>>>One tiny thing however. I don't agree with Fabio about the use of 'm.this.Value'. It should be 'this.value', so without the mdot. The mdot is complicating things here and does not add quality to the code. Fabio, you are giving a bad example and the risk is that it may become widespread to even specify the mdot when refering to this, thisform and the like. I know you can prove that 'this' could also be the name of a field, but that's really too academic.
>>
>>Personally, I don't use the m. in this case either, but it's really only a complication if you are not used to it. Fabio does one thing very properly - he remains consistent. If you handle your code in a completely consistent way, then it is not a complication. Again, I don't do it myself, but I can't find any justification in arguing with anyone that someone's code should not be entirely consisent (even if mine isn't).
>
>Alan,
>Read my sig and understand why I commented. Consistency is not the only issue. Standards are also important. Nobody writes m.this, so it is a de facto standard NOT to write m.this. The discussions have shown when mdot is useless. Even Fabio recognizes those cases. For example, the left argument was without the mdot. We should all agree that it's also not done to write m.this, even if it's in the right argument.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I still say that Fabio does have a standard - and a pretty simple one at that. I'm not all that convinced that 'consistency' and 'standards' can exist independent of each other. How can you have consistency without having at least defacto standards.

Fabio's standard seems to be; where there is the possibility of confusion (forget likelihood, I'm talkng about possibility), use 'm.', otherwise, do not. When the variable is on the left side of the equation, it cannot be a field, so there is no confusion and 'm.' is not required. How could the standard be any simpler than that? Maybe if you state your standard on this, it will be as simple as Fabio's, and I will be able to see it more clearly, but it sounds to me like you want a standard that outlines a rule with exceptions.

In any event, I dont' want to beat a dead horse on this because as I said before, I don't do what Fabio does, but when I see a rule/standard as simple and clear as Fabio's, I find it very hard to argue with it.