>>>>>I think I would use:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

do case
>>>>>   case not this.HaveCar()
>>>>>   case not this.HaveLicense()
>>>>>   case this.isDrunk()
>>>>>   case this.isTired()
>>>>>   case this.getCar().getTank().isEmpty()
>>>>>   otherwise
>>>>>      lCanDrive=.t.
>>>>>endcase

>>>>>
>>>>>I guess there as many ways as programmers <g>
>>>>
>>>>Not that many ways. I think I side with you that IsDrunk(), IsTired(), and so on are better ways.
>>>
>>>I actually never use this approach :).
>>>
>>>It's only that I liked it when I saw it in YAG's code, and thought that if I ever needed something like that, I'd probably go that way. It just happened that I didn't need it, and that the framework (i.e. my boss) prefers separate IFs - in case someone else needs to read my code. So in my current style, the above would be:
>>>

l=.t.
>>>l= l and this.HaveCar()
>>>l= l and this.HaveLicense()
>>>...
>>>if not l
>>>   *-- report error
>>>endif
>>>return l

>>>I know, this relies on VFP not executing any code past the point where l becomes .f., but I think the fears that this may change are unbased. The short logic hasn't changed since 1988, then why should it ever change?
>>
>>warning, with this style you cannot return a NULL value!
>
>And not any other type, except a Logical.

no, any other fire a error,
but if l become null, it work like .T. in =l and this..... expression