M
marian.edu
Guest
Indeed Laura, we’re aware of this ‘limitation’ but I for one am not bothered by this ‘inconsistency’… there are a few things different when working dynamically compared to the static approach so I don’t see why having consistent naming rules between them is considered such a big deal. I don’t have any interest in making a feature request for neither support for: - function alike fields in short notation field access: ttHandle::functionField() - function alike fields in static temp table definition: def temp-table tt field “functionField()” as char. If any of those can be implemented might be of interest for others, will certainly not bother me, my only concern is imposing naming restriction on dynamic temp-table fields just to fix this inconsistency. If the bug description is something like "using parentheses (or keywords) in field names on temp-table definition should be supported as for dynamic temp-table” then I have no problem with it (not interested in having it fix either though), if you make it sound more like “using parentheses (or keywords) in field name on add-new-field method of temp-table should throw error” then I just hope it will never get higher on your todo list 
Marian Edu Acorn IT www.acorn-it.com www.akera.io +40 740 036 212
Continue reading...
Marian Edu Acorn IT www.acorn-it.com www.akera.io +40 740 036 212Continue reading...