>SNIP
>
>>Terry,
>>PMFJI
>>LOOP might be (hardly) avoided under all circumstances but I simply can't understand how a VFP coder can live w/o EXIT and multiple RETURNs provided cares for performance (not only VFP really).
>>Never say Never:)
>>Cetin
>
>Cetin
>NAAJIIYW
>I can't see how a developer can live with himself with multiple returns! :-)
>I've conceded that the odd *small* routine with a for... EXIT.. EndFor to, say, look up in a large list, could be tolerated and, indeed, as Tamor's research has shown, can be beneficial performance-wise. But why need loops? e.g:
>

>Scan
>  If <condition>
>      LOOP
>  Endif
>  Meat
>endscan
>

>can easily be replaced with
>

>Scan
>  If not <condition>
>      Meat
>  Endif
>endscan
>

Terry,
Small code snippets are never < g > enough to show that you need or not need at all.
If 'Meat' is long enough and already contains many levels of other if..endif,do..enddo and alike would be more readable w/o a LOOP?
Wouldn't then I need to check the code down to endscan matching ENDIF carefully to that starting IF to see under that conditon is not met it's simply advancing next?
LOOP answers the readability part.
I couldn't understand the first sentence - do you mean you can live w/o multiple RETURNs? For slower code why not, it's acceptable and is a matter of developer style.
Cetin