No, intended code was

IIF(lExp <> .T. <> .F.,.F.,.T.)

>As others have pointed out the syntax is stupid. They obviously meant:

IIF (lExp <> .t.,.f.,.t.)

>
>>Is there any reason to use
>>

iif(lExp, .t., .f.)

>>instead of lExp itself? The values this iif() returns are identical to the value of lExp.
>>
>>I wonder who invented this redundant way of writing it. I've seen it a hundred times, and still don't get it, why would anyone write it that way. Just like
>>

if lExpr = .t.

>>is identical to
>>

if lExpr