>>>I went to work for a member of my Toronto FoxPro User Group. Another crappy code that thinks he's a genius.
>>>
>>>He asked me why one of his routines was slow. I pointed out innocently and with a willingness to be helpful that Rushmore uses the expression on the left to decide what indexes to use. He said I was wrong. A=B and B=A so therefore Rushmore must optimize the expression whether it was written as LOCATE FOR Upper(fieldname) = "washout walter" or LOCATE FOR "washout walter" = UPPER(fieldname). When I proved it by the manual and by scientific demonstration, he, like our stupidest members got mad at me. Idiots just gotta idiot.
>>
>>
>>This is not true in VFP9 (I remember something like that in a previous version, but I can't remember the details anymore and haven't got older VFP versions installed)
>>
>>Very quick test in VFP9
>>
>>

nSec = SECONDS()
>>FOR nT = 1 TO 1000
>>	LOCATE FOR UPPER(Field) = 'SOMEVALUE'
>>ENDFOR
>>? SECONDS() - nSec
>>
>>nSec = SECONDS()
>>FOR nT = 1 TO 1000
>>	LOCATE FOR 'SOMEVALUE' = UPPER(Field)
>>ENDFOR
>>
>>? SECONDS() - nSec
>>

>>
>>Both ran in approx 40 ms, using the same index. Removing the index, the time needed is tenfold for both
>>
>>It might be the case in VFP6, but not in VFP9.
>>
>>Walter,
>
>Wow. Big deal. Did I say anything about speed?

Yes you did. Read back. Regardless, its evidence that both expression are Rushmore optimizable.
IOW, your assertion is false.

>Did I talk to you?

Yes, as you keep on mentioning me in each and every message.

Walter,