>>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
;)
Words are given to man to enable him to conceal his true feelings.
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord
Weeks of programming can save you hours of planning.
OffThere is no place like [::1]