[AccessD] Access Reserved words

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Note: This e-mail is subject to the disclaimer contained at the bottom of this message.
_______________________________________________________________________________________



Jim,

I would like to know more about your thoughts on this product.  It looks rather useful, but i note it is also rather pricey.  Now that maybe ok as it might still be great value for money given what it can do.  Or it may not be...

be interested to know more for a real user.

cheers
darryl.

________________________________________
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jm.hwsn [jm.hwsn at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2011 6:28 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: [AccessD] Access Reserved words

My customer of the Access 2007 project I'm working on wanted some
functionality that is not native to Access.

For example, they wanted full Rich Text Formatting for several fields.
These fields are used as feedback papers for the users.

They purchased the FMS Total Access Ultimate Suite to be used with this
project.

One of the components is the Total Access Analyzer.

I received the suite after I essentially finished the majority of the work.

I ran the analyzer and it told me that I have 954 objects documented.  It
has 85 tables, 451 queries, 125 forms, 74 reports, 1 macro and 25 modules.
It also informed me that there was a table that wasn't being used and a
field in two queries that didn't belong to any table.  It also told me it
found 244 errors, 3042 suggestions on improving it and 830 performance
issues.

I haven't worked through most of them yet, but many are small things such as
"transaction log" for a query is turned on and should be turned off.

One item identified is:  a column "conflicts with future SQL Server reserved
word."

I did some research and found out the reserved words it talks about have
been on the list since at least 2000 and is still on list for SQL Server
2010.

Another item was:  a column "conflicts with Jet reserved word."  In the
description it says it's a "minor issue."

I am aware of the problems of using reserved words.

BUT. I used "language" and "comp" as field names.  I should have known
better, but I also used "order" and "default."

I have had NO issues with these reserved words - yet.

My question is:  Should I spend the time to change the field names?

If I don't change them, what kind of problems will it create?



Thanks,
Jim





--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
_______________________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted in this message and its attachments (if any) is intended 
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.
The message may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, 
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance 
upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.

If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail 
and associated material from any computer.

The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute 
the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files, with the permission 
of the sender.

This message has been scanned for viruses.
_______________________________________________________________________________________