<snip>
>>>A good idea! I have a similar problem somewhere else:
>>>SCAN
>>> REPLACE This WITH That FOR !EMPTY(THAT)
>>>ENDSCAN
>>>I suppose, this also is not Rushmore optimizable, but using LEN(That)>0 does not solve it: I would have to say again LEN(ALLTRIM(That)>0, which throws me back again. Do you have a suggestion??
>>
>>Well, one thing that may be slowing down that particular piece of code is the SCAN...ENDSCAN. It's totally unnecessary since the REPLACE...FOR spins thru the entire table also and shouldn't be put inside a SCAN loop.
>>
>>Bonnie
>
>Hi Bonnie,
>Isn't that REPLACE ALL what you mean? If I REPLACE ... FOR I will only replace one record IMHO?

No, Christian, the REPLACE...FOR will replace all records that meet the FOR condition, not just one record.


Bonnie