>>But this would change all records in myval<7. Might not be intended.
>
>Premature optimization...
>
>It is neither the fastest nor the most correct (depending on the unknown purpose). It is not correct for what you pointed out: it might not be intended; and it is not the fastest for if you absolutely know that only the current record might need to be updated, then using a FOR will be slower. In short, it might be the fastest and most correct way for some scenarios, not for all. (and then there might be an argument that UPDATE - SQL might be better than this)

No doubt on this. But as far as I remember a FOR scope clause was never in the argument.

So formally it need to be:

replace myval with int(myval) for myval < 7  NEXT 1 in alias

;)