Does using a With...End With block give you any performance gains/hits other than making the code more readable?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In God we trust, everything else we test.

It used to in VB6, but not in .NET.

Thanks!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In God we trust, everything else we test.

No performance gains. When a program is compiled, all object references are converted to means of identifying that make sense only to the machine.
When With ... End With is compiled, all references within the block become specific references; the resultant code is identical to what it would have been if the author had been explicit, rather than using the With ... End With block. (Just to answer the question)

It is the same with using constants. They simplify authoring code, and they reduce the potential for typos (though they propogate a typo in the constant definition to all parts that use the constant).
But when the code is compiled, all constants are replaced with the literal value they are defined as. Compilation is slowed a tad, but the resultant program is byte-for-byte what it would have been if you had typed the literal value everywhere you used the constant.

I appreciate the explanation. It's more helpful to us humans than anything else. I think I'll use it when it helps readability of the source code. Thanks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In God we trust, everything else we test.

In consideration to readability, I personally discourage my own use of this construct because I think it actually makes things less readable. If you have lots of lines that start with "." you may soon lose track of what's before the ".". Particularly if you start nesting them.

Also, when you're debugging, you can't just mouseover the property that's dangling off the ".". If you find yourself using With to avoid a repetition of some complicated code chunk (like "CType(e.Item.Cells(0).Controls(2), Button)") then perhaps a better solution would be to make another variable to house that repeated object.

I'd rather see this:
   objButton.property
   objButton.property
   objButton.property
than this:
   .property
   .property
   .property

I seldom use With aside from a case where i have only a few (<=3) lines that could use it.

-Peter