>>>And I wonder why Jay was so keen in getting this.
>>>
>>>My two-penn'orth.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>To me, it not so much how fancy or cleave the code is, but efficent and readable it is.
>
>It's not the cleavage of the code, I agree - it's efficiency and readability. Anything that requires four lines instead of one (plus a blank line above and below to make it stand out) decreases readability by making my code too long. The code I have to scroll through is less readable than one that fits on a single screen.
>
>As to a particular construct being less readable than the older one we have gotten used to - so what, it's less readable first time only. Should we have shunned Scan/Endscan because it wasn't obvious that it does a skip and checks for eof() and reselects its alias automatically?
>

do while !eof()
>{bla bla bla}
>   select myalias
>   skip
>enddo

Now you see, I even deplore the use of ! for NOT. Saves 2 keystokes (but with the added nuisance of having to shift) - big deal! It's less readable. But Scan-endscan doesn't need the select and skip business cos its name IMPLIES it's SCANNING the table - so far more readable

>is perfectly readable - and still I prefer Scan/Endscan which obfuscates things by omitting those two lines. I also prefer using justpath(), juststem() etc instead of slicing the filename strings. Yeah, it's not so obvious... first time.

I think that JUSTPATH() etc are far more intuitively readable than the lines os AT("/"..." and all that that one had to plough through before.

>
>As to the construct in case not selecting the table - USE ... IN ... never did. That should be obvious.
>
>IOW, I disagree with any habit that would have me write (in an imaginary example)
>
>

if iif(lValue=.t., .f., .t.)=.t.

>
>instead of
>
>

if not lValue

>
>just because a perceived majority thinks the former is more readable. I'm glad we got evl() and nvl(), glad that we can use getpem(oObj, cMembername) instead of eval("oobj."+cMembername) or eval(forceext("oobj", cMemberName)) (yes, I used that in a number of places) etc etc.
>
>Readability is in the eye of the beholder.