>>I think it's the old type of JOIN syntax, but to me personally it's harder to read / understand, than the other variation.
>
>OK, I also try to never use the old type of join syntax in the select statements, but in the update I am always in the fence, for I try to avoid, if possible, the use of the target table twice (as target and as source) because, for me and maybe only me in the entire world, it makes it a little bit confusing. Anyways, we agreed its a matter of preferences and I was addressing your two previous posts (bold mine) "You need to use JOIN condition" and "You do need it according to the original logic. (he was doing seek and replace) when in fact my syntax was awkwardly right (and the comment about seek and replace out of place altogether) , so.... apologies accepted :)

:) Ok, consider it given.