Hi Lew
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 18:44:47 -0400 From: Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: lparameters & mdot convention To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=originalI just completed an interview and, perhaps not too wisely, I observed that there was a problem some versions ago when you use lparameters m.<varname> vs lparameters <varname>. My interviewer asked what the problem was, but I couldn't & can't remember anything more at all. Does this ring a bell with anyone? -Lew
I've never heard of such a thing. In fact, the reverse is true. If you have a table open with a field name that matches the name of the parameter when you hover your mouse over the parameter names in the debugger, you will see the field content, not the parameter being passed. Can be a little shocking. Adding the mdot ensures you're seeing the right value. However, VFP has correctly passed the parameter value regardless of the mdot. So I don't consider it essential to add mdots to the lparameters line, but I think it's a good idea! http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~EssentialMDot~VFP Mike _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
