> I'm imagining it will be different, as I expect temp to not hide the old > thing. I'm not sure it will.
That is another good question. I just searched through the S and A's and couldn't find if temp will blank it out. I am thinking it will act like local. Each of the declarations my, our and local currently set the value to undefined (unless set = to something). I imagine that temp and let will behave the same. In which case "local %h;" and "let %h" would allocate a new, empty variable in a addition to the original variable (which is hidden but still retains its contents). Paul
