>>Cetin
>>
>>>>>...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).
>>
>>>>Cetin
>>>>NAAJIIYW
>>>>I can't see how a developer can live with himself with multiple returns! :-)
>>>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.
>>
>>My little joke. You said "but I simply can't understand how a VFP coder can live w/o EXIT and multiple RETURNs" and I retorted that (as it's such a heinous crime, like knocking a kid down with your car ;-)), "How could you live with yourself...?" It's idiomatic English meaning that your conscience would be troubling you :).
>>
>>>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.
>>>Cetin
>>
>>Again, I try to keep my code to no more than an A4 piece of paper so a) It can all be followed on 1 screen, b) If printed out it's all on 1 piece of paper. When it gets too big I factor out to procs and funcs. So no readability problems.
>>
>Terry,
>
>We're exactly on the same page.:-)

George

And there's only ONE per proc! :-)

Right on, Bro'

Terry