My suspicion is that the two commands are equivalent. The scope of ALL (as opposed to NEXT n, REST, etc.) is implied when the FOR clause is used unless a less inclusive scope adverb is used.

>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.