>> 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