>Hello,
>I was just going through some code in a FP2.6 program, and saw following code:
>REPLACE ALL MyField WITH NewValue FOR ThisField=ThatValue
>I know that the ALL is not necessary here, because the FOR will do the job already (to replace all).
>But my question is:
>Is the above code much slower than it would be without the ALL, or does FoxPro just not worry about the ALL.
>maybe someone knows the answer.
>Thank you for help.

I have tested - they are virtually the same in performance, so the ALL is redundant. In practice, it might make code a little more readable for a newbie, I suppose...