Laura Stewart wrote: > I understand, and because of that, I would prefer to change the > procedure name. > One question to ask the community as how often are these particular > procedures invoked by users? > > If you look at the Ref Guide PDF, every occasion where these long > names are used, they bleed outside the margins or in some cases off > the entire page. That is especially true for section titles and the > Table of Contents.
Instead of bleeding outside the margins or off the page, would it be possible to either (selectively) reduce the font size or do a continuation line and break the procedure across lines? I agree with Mike that it'd be nice to retain the SYSCS_UTIL. -jean > Lesson learned for the future... when we implement another built in > procedure, we need to discuss the name to ensure that it makes sense > and is not too long :-) > > > On 3/6/07, Mike Matrigali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >
