I'm in full agreement regarding the syntax - but the hope of the my original post was to determine if implenting "the syntax" made my VFP EXE more efficient and/or "logo" complient.

Is it a "meaningless" implementation - (ie - has no effect on VFP.EXE/OS efficiency and "logo" issues) - or is it a helpful as it relates OS and logo issues?

There are many good ways to to resolve the path string for the folder a VFP.EXE app is in. But, would including the code:
ucRootDirectory=SYS(5)+SYS(2003)
ucPath=["]+ucRootDirectory+["]
SET PATH TO (ucPath)
Make a VFP.EXE more OS efficient - more "logo" compliant.

I have not tested (the code) with a "Filemon" analyser. But I have seen a "Filemon" analysis of a VFP.EXE a few months back - and I was surprised - The OS would fail 9 out of 10 registry/resource searches before a "success". The hope was that the posted code might increase that success rate!

The methods to obtain a path string are helpful and interesting. I was curious if implementing a SET PATH in my Main.PRG would make my VFP.EXE run better!:-)

>A couple of points:
>
>* -- you can use SYS(16,0) so that you can get this out of your main program and still find out what you need to know
>
>* -- you can use JUSTPATH() on the results.
>
>(I'm pretty sure both these items came into the base product in VFP 7, in case backwards-compat is an issue for you.
>
>Could be earlier. I don't have VFP 6 on this machine to check. In VFP 5, JUSTPATH() was only in FOXTOOLS.)
>
>>L<