>>You do need it according to the original logic. (he was doing seek and replace).
>
>either one works the same for me, so i use the short one, are there any drawbacks of using it my way?
>
>

>CREATE CURSOR cur (pk int autoinc, xvalue char(10), fkPlans int)
>CREATE CURSOR pln (pk int autoinc, xvalue char(10))
>
>INSERT INTO cur (xvalue, fkPlans) VALUES ('', 2)
>INSERT INTO cur (xvalue, fkPlans) VALUES ('', 4)
>INSERT INTO cur (xvalue, fkPlans) VALUES ('', 6)
>INSERT INTO cur (xvalue, fkPlans) VALUES ('', 8)
>
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('ONE')
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('TWO')
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('THREE')
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('FOUR')
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('FIVE')
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('SIX')
>INSERT INTO pln (xvalue) VALUES ('SEVEN')
>
>UPDATE cur SET xvalue = pln.xvalue from pln WHERE pln.pk = cur.fkplans
>
>* or
>
>UPDATE cur SET xvalue = pln.xvalue FROM pln INNER JOIN cur ON cur.fkPlans = pln.pk
>
>

The first variation is not traditionally written and I'm not sure why it works. May be VFP somehow allows this type of join.