>> Seems the first mail didn't make it ... >Actually it did, I was about to reply to it :) > >The suggested change pares down the "Tip" to more of a brief "Note", which >IMHO is a bit >terse for that section of the documentation (which has more of a tutorial >character), >and the contents of the original tip basically still apply for volatile >default values >anyway. > >I've attached another suggestion for rewording this which should also make the >mechanics of the operation a little clearer.
Thank you, that better explains it. Looks good to me. Regards Daniel
