>>One of my co-worker saw one of my SEEK() statement and made a "big" deal that I shouldn't do it this way, but he wouldn't say why except to say that "it's not our standard"...
>>
>>What is wrong With
>>
>>IF SEEK(MyValue, "MyTable", "MyIndexTag")
>> ...
>>ENDIF
>>?
>>
>>Is there a reason why I should use this?
>>
>>So did you check the standards document? <s> Seriously, if someone said that to me today, I'd [among other things] check the standards document, or ask for a copy.
>>
>>Someone may have already said this - unless I'm really missing something, a SEEK will fail if MyTable has an active filter that excludes MyValue [where MyValue exists in MyTable, but isn't part of an active filter on MyTable]. Same deal with INDEXSEEK. [at least in the simple test I just ran].
>>
>>However, a SELECT statement will find the record. [which, arguably, should be used anyway, if you ever plan on moving the code to SQL Server]
>>
>>
>>Kevin
>
>'Seek' gives huge advantage for native data access, and shouldn't be discarded, and I'm pretty sure everyone already moved to SQL-Server in some way.
>That's another story that 'Set Filter' had to be discarded 10 years ago when VFP3b appeared.

SET FILTER works fine. It's just that many people don't know how to use it.