>Bruce ---
>
>>I'm a little surprised to find that FOR is faster than SCAN (in applicable situations) in some tests I did in vfp6. The old rule was the other way around, I believe...
>
>It was the other way around. Are you running VFP6 production version?

No, I'm still on beta...but we had a thread a while back, as I recall, in which speed order was SCAN, FOR, WHILE (with WHILE a distant third). I'd just accepted this as a given until now, but at least in beta6 FOR wins cleanly...