i believe == is not rushomore compatible

P

>Fernando,
>
>I know how it works, but up until now, I've only used == in cases where it needs to be done.
>I think it might be better to ALWAYS use == in any comparison, EXCEPT in cases where you want matches on partial strings
>
>So the question is where might that go wrong.
>
>Walter,
>
>
>>>Just encountered a bug in our software releated to the use of = when set exact is set to off.
>>>
>>>I Know I should be using == in those cases where comparing strings of different lenght, but just a small test made me wonder.
>>>
>>>Is there any reason I should not use == for any comparison in VFP? It seems to work for any datatype.
>>>
>>>Is there any gotcha using == as a standard?
>>>
>>>
>>>Walter,
>>
>>Hi Walter:
>>
>>- When you want to make sure you compare the exact match, then you should use "==" to make the comparison independent of the SET EXACT setting
>>- When you want to compare by the alternative logic of "begins with", then you use "=" and SET EXACT OFF
>>
>>In regards of the velocity of comparison between "==" and "=", in my PC a 1000000 (millon) FOR loop shows me that "== is a little faster, but negligible in small loops:
>>
>>

>>*--
>>nSecs=SECONDS()
>>FOR I = 1 TO 1000000
>>   =("AA" = "AAA")
>>ENDFOR
>>? SECONDS()-nSecs
>>
>>0.187
>>
>>*--
>>nSecs=SECONDS()
>>FOR I = 1 TO 1000000
>>   =("AA" == "AAA")
>>ENDFOR
>>? SECONDS()-nSecs
>>
>>0.140
>>
>>*--
>>

>>
>>
>>Regards.-