db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Long name of built-in system procedure causes doc problems
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:18:05 GMT
If you have to, to get it work then go ahead.  But do note that I have
gotten multiple questions about "missing" system procedures when the
answer was that the user left off the SYSCS_UTIL. -- this is why I
prefer all documentation to have the complete reference.  I know it
is likely that a paragraph will explain the need for the complete name -
but users will pick and choose paragraphs/examples and if one usage
is wrong - someone will use it.


Suresh Thalamati wrote:
> Laura Stewart wrote:
> 
>> Okay, is it acceptable in places where we are only discussing the
>> procedure to omit the SYSCS_UTIL. portion of the name?
>> Clearly in examples that users might copy/paste we would use the full 
>> name.
>>
> 
> In the description of procedures it might be ok to omit the 
> "SYSCS_UTIL." part , as you mention,  it should not be omitted in
> the title/syntax/examples.
> 
> 
> -suresh
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message