Re: 7.1 gets stricter on SQL

Calm down everyone! Just because a keyword appears in the SQL reserved
word list does NOT mean it cannot be used as a column name, function name,
table name, etc. It just indicates that there is somewhere is the SQL
grammar that it needed to appear as a keyword. In this case, ID is used in
an obscure place in the new XMLVALIDATE function. I do not see any way
that it will interfere with a column named ID. (If anyone finds a problem
with ID, report it as a problem and I should be able to fix it).

When RID was added, it was used as a function name which could appear in
the same place in the syntax as a column named RID, so that was a problem.
When we implement standard-defined syntax, we don't get any say in what
keywords get used. I always cringe when I see a reserved word that looks
like it could be used as a name. I can only try my best to limit the scope
of where it needs to be reserved.

Hope this settles everyone down a bit on this issue!

Sue Romano
IBM i SQL development

On 2/1/2011 3:45 PM, James Perkins wrote:

If the actual name of the field is ID that *could* be the issue. At 7.1

ID

is a reserved word for future use. Personally I think it's crap they

chose

ID, but they did. So even if it isn't the issue now, it could be later.

http://goo.gl/53jkL

Full link.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v7r1m0/topic/db2/rbafzwordsre.htm?resultof=%22%73%71%6c%22%20%22%72%6>5%73%65%72%76%65%64%22%20%22%72%65%73%65%72%76%22%20%22%77%6f%72%64%73%22%20%22%77%6f%72%64%22%20

I am so dead.
--buck