>>>If this is a multi-use scenario, replae your REPLACE ALL statement with a SCAN loop for the reasons that Bruce pointed out.
>>
>>Can you not still bump into a "conflict" with this technique? Assuming these replaces are mandatory...
>
>Sure you can. But you can handle it on a record by record basis:
>
>IF !RLOCK()
>LOOP
>ENDIF

Er, yes - but what I meant was that the records *must* have a field updated, they cannot be skipped, or life could not go on successfully :) That was my case...