|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syntax coloring: SERVICEIn SQL 2005 Server Management Studio, when you type T-SQL commands into a
SQL query box, keywords are colored blue, comments are green, etc. (by default). Why is the word SERVICE colored blue like a T-SQL keyword? Thanks. David Walker [Service] is an object that you can create, drop, and use. Therefore it is
also a T-SQL keyword. -- Show quoteArnie Rowland, Ph.D. Westwood Consulting, Inc Most good judgment comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the top yourself. - H. Norman Schwarzkopf "DWalker" <n***@none.com> wrote in message news:eVCR59S$GHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > In SQL 2005 Server Management Studio, when you type T-SQL commands into a > SQL query box, keywords are colored blue, comments are green, etc. (by > default). > > Why is the word SERVICE colored blue like a T-SQL keyword? > > Thanks. > > David Walker "Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> wrote in Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index entry news:OvVsbCT$GHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > [Service] is an object that you can create, drop, and use. Therefore > it is also a T-SQL keyword. > in BOL 2005? Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown ??? Thanks. David > Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index entry You're not getting anything returned in the index on the word 'service'? In > in BOL 2005? the most recent update to BOL, the index returns the following choices when SERVICE is the keyword. service See services [Analysis Services] service See services [Integration Services] service See services [Notification Services] service See services [Reporting Services] service See services [Service Broker] service See services [SQL Server] Or where you expecting to see something like this in the index? SERVICE ALTER CREATE DROP If so, we could consider doing that in a future update, but for now you would be better off using more complete phrases in the index like 'CREATE SERVICE' or 'DROP SERVICE'. > Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I It probably should be. I've filed a doc bug for this issue. Thanks for > guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) reporting this. > And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: I suspect this is a transient error, but I've forwarded your e-mail to the > > <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: > 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. > Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown appropriate team for further evaluation. -- Show quoteGail Erickson [MS] SQL Server Documentation Team This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Download the latest version of Books Online from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx "DWalker" <n***@none.com> wrote in message news:edo4A2g$GHA.1556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> wrote in > news:OvVsbCT$GHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > >> [Service] is an object that you can create, drop, and use. Therefore >> it is also a T-SQL keyword. >> > > Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index entry > in BOL 2005? > > Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I > guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) > > And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: > > <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: > 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. > Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown > > ??? > > Thanks. > > David On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:02:07 -0800, "Gail Erickson [MS]"
<ga***@online.microsoft.com> wrote: >If so, we could consider doing that in a future update, but for now you That is fine when you already have some idea about what SERVICE is>would be better off using more complete phrases in the index like 'CREATE >SERVICE' or 'DROP SERVICE'. about. If the point is to find out what SERVICE is about that approach is not possible. Roy Harvey Beacon Falls, CT Gail,
>> Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is SSMS that has it the wrong way. >> guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) > It probably should be. I've filed a doc bug for this issue. Thanks for reporting this. Check out Roger Wolters book on SB, page 59-60 and you'll see that they designed it so that some of the new language constructs aren't actually keywords. Roger talks about SEND and RECEIVE but SERVICE seems to be in that category. In below script, there is no error message, even though I'm not delimiting the word SERVICE: USE tempdb CREATE TABLE SERVICE (c1 int) SELECT * FROM SERVICE (*) One could of course get into the debate of what a keyword really is. I don't know, perhaps a keyword can work as an un-qualified identifier, while others can't. I'll leave that for you to investigate. :-) -- Show quoteTibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ "Gail Erickson [MS]" <ga***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:urgXkIh$GHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index entry >> in BOL 2005? > You're not getting anything returned in the index on the word 'service'? In the most recent > update to BOL, the index returns the following choices when SERVICE is the keyword. > service See services [Analysis Services] > service See services [Integration Services] > service See services [Notification Services] > service See services [Reporting Services] > service See services [Service Broker] > service See services [SQL Server] > > Or where you expecting to see something like this in the index? > > SERVICE > ALTER > CREATE > DROP > > If so, we could consider doing that in a future update, but for now you would be better off using > more complete phrases in the index like 'CREATE SERVICE' or 'DROP SERVICE'. > >> Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I >> guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) > It probably should be. I've filed a doc bug for this issue. Thanks for reporting this. > >> And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: >> >> <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: >> 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. >> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown > > I suspect this is a transient error, but I've forwarded your e-mail to the appropriate team for > further evaluation. > > -- > Gail Erickson [MS] > SQL Server Documentation Team > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights > Download the latest version of Books Online from > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx > > > "DWalker" <n***@none.com> wrote in message news:edo4A2g$GHA.1556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> "Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> wrote in >> news:OvVsbCT$GHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: >> >>> [Service] is an object that you can create, drop, and use. Therefore >>> it is also a T-SQL keyword. >>> >> >> Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index entry >> in BOL 2005? >> >> Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I >> guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) >> >> And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: >> >> <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: >> 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. >> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown >> >> ??? >> >> Thanks. >> >> David > > > You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is SSMS Thanks Tibor. My follow-up investigation arrived at the same conclusion :>)> that has it the wrong way. -- Show quoteGail Erickson [MS] SQL Server Documentation Team This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Download the latest version of Books Online from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_kara***@hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message news:%23sIvrul$GHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Gail, > >>> Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I >>> guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) >> It probably should be. I've filed a doc bug for this issue. Thanks for >> reporting this. > > You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is SSMS > that has it the wrong way. Check out Roger Wolters book on SB, page 59-60 > and you'll see that they designed it so that some of the new language > constructs aren't actually keywords. Roger talks about SEND and RECEIVE > but SERVICE seems to be in that category. In below script, there is no > error message, even though I'm not delimiting the word SERVICE: > > USE tempdb > CREATE TABLE SERVICE (c1 int) > SELECT * FROM SERVICE > > (*) One could of course get into the debate of what a keyword really is. I > don't know, perhaps a keyword can work as an un-qualified identifier, > while others can't. I'll leave that for you to investigate. :-) > > -- > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ > > > "Gail Erickson [MS]" <ga***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:urgXkIh$GHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index >>> entry >>> in BOL 2005? >> You're not getting anything returned in the index on the word 'service'? >> In the most recent update to BOL, the index returns the following choices >> when SERVICE is the keyword. >> service See services [Analysis Services] >> service See services [Integration Services] >> service See services [Notification Services] >> service See services [Reporting Services] >> service See services [Service Broker] >> service See services [SQL Server] >> >> Or where you expecting to see something like this in the index? >> >> SERVICE >> ALTER >> CREATE >> DROP >> >> If so, we could consider doing that in a future update, but for now you >> would be better off using more complete phrases in the index like 'CREATE >> SERVICE' or 'DROP SERVICE'. >> >>> Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I >>> guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) >> It probably should be. I've filed a doc bug for this issue. Thanks for >> reporting this. >> >>> And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: >>> >>> <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: >>> 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. >>> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown >> >> I suspect this is a transient error, but I've forwarded your e-mail to >> the appropriate team for further evaluation. >> >> -- >> Gail Erickson [MS] >> SQL Server Documentation Team >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no >> rights >> Download the latest version of Books Online from >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx >> >> >> "DWalker" <n***@none.com> wrote in message >> news:edo4A2g$GHA.1556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> "Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> wrote in >>> news:OvVsbCT$GHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: >>> >>>> [Service] is an object that you can create, drop, and use. Therefore >>>> it is also a T-SQL keyword. >>>> >>> >>> Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index >>> entry >>> in BOL 2005? >>> >>> Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I >>> guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) >>> >>> And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: >>> >>> <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: >>> 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. >>> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown >>> >>> ??? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> David >> >> > "Gail Erickson [MS]" <ga***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in Yes, this is all quite confusing. It's just odd to see things that are news:e0CELaq$GHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: >> You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is >> SSMS that has it the wrong way. > > Thanks Tibor. My follow-up investigation arrived at the same > conclusion :>) > colored blue in the syntax diagram, and I start wondering whether I should not use the word SERVICE as a table name. So I look in the list of reserved words... and I don't see that SERVICE is reserved. But it's obviously something... Yes, I saw the list: service See services [Analysis Services] service See services [Integration Services] service See services [Notification Services] service See services [Reporting Services] service See services [Service Broker] service See services [SQL Server] in the index, but following a link like "services [SQL server]" tells you how to start and stop SQL server services. The word SERVICE is not used. I looked at a couple of others, and never saw the word SERVICE. I must have missed the [servioce broker] entry that shows CREATE SERVICE. Thanks for all the replies. I see it is not a well-settled area. David "Gail Erickson [MS]" <ga***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in So it'll just stay wrong in SSMS? Not a big deal, just something that I news:e0CELaq$GHA.4592@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: >> You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is >> SSMS that has it the wrong way. > > Thanks Tibor. My follow-up investigation arrived at the same > conclusion :>) > will be aware of. Thanks. David Tibor Karaszi (tibor_please.no.email_kara***@hotmail.nomail.com) writes:
> You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is It's out? Why didn't anyone tell me? Where is the nearest bookstore?> SSMS that has it the wrong way. Check out Roger Wolters book on SB, page > 59-60 > the new language constructs aren't actually keywords. SEND and RECEIVE but I would call them "unreserved keywords". That is, tokens that still are> SERVICE seems to be in that category. >... > (*) One could of course get into the debate of what a keyword really is. legal as identifiers. T-SQL is completely diluted with them. And it's nothing that started with SQL 2005. A very old one is OUTPUT. An editor that is not syntax-aware does of course have the ghost of the chance of getting it right. The best is probably to colour, unless the keyword is really obscure. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq***@sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx >> (*) One could of course get into the debate of what a keyword really is. Yepp, I know that SQL Server is confusing here. When I started to write that reply, I thought about > > I would call them "unreserved keywords". That is, tokens that still are > legal as identifiers. T-SQL is completely diluted with them. And it's > nothing that started with SQL 2005. Roger's comment that they avoided making some new SB command elements into keywords. As I wrote, I just remembered that there exists many things in TSQL which actually are documented as keywords, but still work as unqualified identifiers. This is why I made the (*) remark, with suggestion for Gail to investigate further. Seems we have several categories here (first, a keyword can be TSQL, ODBC, ANSI and/or Future): Documented keywords, that need to be delimited. (SELECT) Documented keywords, that don't need to be delimited. (I thought that USER_NAME was such an example, but I now see it isn't documented as a keyword. Perhaps there are no such examples?) Words not documented as keywords but that need to be delimited (I don't know if such exists, but it is a possibility) Words not documented as keywords, but are language constructs (like RECEIVE), that don't need to be delimited Then we have the section about future reserved words. I guess that many (most/all?) of these work as non-delimited identifiers, but that can break in future version. So the big questions is now what the GUI tools should syntax color for... -- Show quoteTibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ "Erland Sommarskog" <esq***@sommarskog.se> wrote in message news:Xns986FEF613F15BYazorman@127.0.0.1... > Tibor Karaszi (tibor_please.no.email_kara***@hotmail.nomail.com) writes: >> You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is >> SSMS that has it the wrong way. Check out Roger Wolters book on SB, page >> 59-60 > > It's out? Why didn't anyone tell me? Where is the nearest bookstore? > >> the new language constructs aren't actually keywords. SEND and RECEIVE but >> SERVICE seems to be in that category. >>... >> (*) One could of course get into the debate of what a keyword really is. > > I would call them "unreserved keywords". That is, tokens that still are > legal as identifiers. T-SQL is completely diluted with them. And it's > nothing that started with SQL 2005. A very old one is OUTPUT. > > An editor that is not syntax-aware does of course have the ghost of the > chance of getting it right. The best is probably to colour, unless the > keyword is really obscure. > > -- > Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq***@sommarskog.se > > Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx > Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx > You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is SSMS Along similar lines, I find it interesting that precision lights up in blue, > that has it the wrong way. but scale does not. Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP] (ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa) writes:
>> You might want to cancel that. SERVICE isn't a keyword (*) and it is SSMS declare @x double precision>> that has it the wrong way. > > Along similar lines, I find it interesting that precision lights up in > blue, but scale does not. select @x = pi() -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq***@sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx Why, why why...
Why do you assume that it is not documented in Books Online? Why don't you notice that there are many index entries for SERVICE in Books Online? Why don't you look up SERVICE in Books Online? Why not hone in on 'SERVICE class'? Why not read further in Books Online about the 'SERVICE class'? Why is it not on the Reserved Word list? (I don't know -there are many mysteries in life...) Why does my sending Feedback on BOL work and your attempt Fail? And Why am I responding with so many Whys? (I don't know, it just hit me that way...) Why? -- Show quoteArnie Rowland, Ph.D. Westwood Consulting, Inc Most good judgment comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the top yourself. - H. Norman Schwarzkopf "DWalker" <n***@none.com> wrote in message news:edo4A2g$GHA.1556@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> wrote in > news:OvVsbCT$GHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > >> [Service] is an object that you can create, drop, and use. Therefore >> it is also a T-SQL keyword. >> > > Where is this documented? Why doesn't the word SERVICE have an index entry > in BOL 2005? > > Why isn't SERVICE in the list of T-SQL reserved words in BOL 2005? (I > guess it's not a reserved word even though it gets colored blue.) > > And why, if anyone knows, does sending feedback on BOL 2005 fail with: > > <sqldo***@microsoft.com>: > 205.248.106.30 does not like recipient. > Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 User unknown > > ??? > > Thanks. > > David On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:03:51 -0800, "Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> In my case because I don't use a Microsoft email client, or anythingwrote: >Why does my sending Feedback on BOL work and your attempt Fail? like one. If I want to provide feedback I have to find the matching page on the web copy of the docs and add my feedback there. Roy Roy Harvey (roy_har***@snet.net) writes:
> In my case because I don't use a Microsoft email client, or anything I would expect that if you have defined another mailer as the default,> like one. If I want to provide feedback I have to find the matching > page on the web copy of the docs and add my feedback there. that it Books Online would use that mailer. Else, I would consider it a bug. And if you use a non-Windows mailer, you would still have Outlook Express on the machine, so you could click the button to get the subject line, and then cut and paste. This is what I usually do. I use Outlook Express for my POP mailbox, for the simple reason I use that mailbox so rarely, that I haven't to find anything better. For my regular mail, I use a very plain mail reader on Unix. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq***@sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx Erland Sommarskog <esq***@sommarskog.se> wrote in
Show quote news:Xns986FF03D5A560Yazorman@127.0.0.1: My attempts to send feedback worked after a couple of days. The sending > Roy Harvey (roy_har***@snet.net) writes: >> In my case because I don't use a Microsoft email client, or anything >> like one. If I want to provide feedback I have to find the matching >> page on the web copy of the docs and add my feedback there. > > I would expect that if you have defined another mailer as the default, > that it Books Online would use that mailer. Else, I would consider it a > bug. > > And if you use a non-Windows mailer, you would still have Outlook Express > on the machine, so you could click the button to get the subject line, > and then cut and paste. This is what I usually do. I use Outlook Express > for my POP mailbox, for the simple reason I use that mailbox so rarely, > that I haven't to find anything better. For my regular mail, I use a > very plain mail reader on Unix. > wasn't the problem; the e-mail message got to a Microsoft server which rejected the message with a "no such e-mail account" message. David On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<esq***@sommarskog.se> wrote: >... you would still have Outlook Express on the machine... If so, Erland, it is only because I have failed in my attempts tostamp it out. And it would also mean Microsoft is lying to me, as the Add/Remove Windows Components list shows that box as not checked. Even if it were there, I would NOT tell it my email address or anything else. I suppose I am paranoid, but just as I will not use Internet Explorer (except to run Windows Update) I simply do not trust any version of Outlook. There is just too long a history of exploits, and too many nasty bits of software out there know to look for Outlook and what it stores. But that is just me. Roy Roy Harvey (roy_har***@snet.net) writes:
Show quote >>... you would still have Outlook Express on the machine... Nah, not only. I only use Internet Explorer locally, mainly to see that> > If so, Erland, it is only because I have failed in my attempts to > stamp it out. And it would also mean Microsoft is lying to me, as the > Add/Remove Windows Components list shows that box as not checked. > > Even if it were there, I would NOT tell it my email address or > anything else. I suppose I am paranoid, but just as I will not use > Internet Explorer (except to run Windows Update) I simply do not trust > any version of Outlook. There is just too long a history of exploits, > and too many nasty bits of software out there know to look for Outlook > and what it stores. > > But that is just me. my web pages display properly in it. Since I run ZoneAlarm, it would tell me if tries to go outside of the machine, and I about never permit it. Not only does IE make me nervous, it's also an inferior browser to Opera and Firefox. Or was. Automatic Updates alerted me that IE7 was available, but it appears that the download is still inhibited due to a regulation. In any case, I'm not holding my breath. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq***@sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Show quote
"Arnie Rowland" <ar***@1568.com> wrote in I did NOT assume it was not documented in BOL, I looked in BOL first. The news:ePQthJh$GHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > Why, why why... > > Why do you assume that it is not documented in Books Online? > Why don't you notice that there are many index entries for SERVICE in > Books Online? > Why don't you look up SERVICE in Books Online? > Why not hone in on 'SERVICE class'? > Why not read further in Books Online about the 'SERVICE class'? > Why is it not on the Reserved Word list? (I don't know -there are many > mysteries in life...) > > Why does my sending Feedback on BOL work and your attempt Fail? > > And Why am I responding with so many Whys? (I don't know, it just hit > me that way...) > > Why? > word SERVICE applies to many things, such as "starting and stopping SQL services", which as discussed elsewhere doesn't involve the word SERVICE. I looked at several of those entries, and none of them that I looked at actually used the word SERVICE. Now I found one, though (under Service Broker: CREATE SERVICE. I didn't hone in on the Service class... Why should I hone in there rather than on some other "See Also" entry? And, I don't use the Service class in T-SQL! Maybe if I were writing a VB or C++ procedure or query, but I'm not. My sending feedback finally worked after a couple of days. It should be listed in the reserved word list if it's a reserved word. If it's not, then maybe it shouldn't be colored... There IS a list of "future reserved" words in BOL under Reserved Words [SQL Server]. David  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics