[AccessD] Naming Conventions

"For example, Customer_qs, Customer_qa, Customer_qd and Customer_qu. I don't 
think that I even need to spell out what they do, the convention is so 
obvious, and it has the added advantage of intelligent sorting." Arthur

...I've always used Reddick but Charlotte mentioned your method once a long 
while back but I never followed up ...your simple example makes a lot of 
sense so now I have to see if there is a sane way to convert all my apps to 
using it :(

William

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <artful at rogers.com>
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" 
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Naming Conventions


> The historian in me chafes at the bit, John. Hungarian notation began with 
> Charles Simonyi, IIRC. But as I wrote previously, the particular 
> convention does not matter, so long as one adheres to it. I prefer 
> Hungarian postfix for one simple reason: signal to noise ratio. With the 
> Reddick/Leszynski convention, the first n letters are noise, IMO, not 
> signal, so I use these identifiers as suffixes not prefixes:
>
> clsMyClass --> MyClass_cls
>
> This convention sorts everything (IMO) much more intelligently than the 
> classic H-prefix notation. I want everything related to "Customer" to 
> begin with "Customer", not "cls" or "frm" or "rpt" etc. Perhaps this is an 
> indication of my advanced age. I like to see everything related to 
> "Customer" sorted alphabetically under "Customer", not distributed beneath 
> a dozen or more prefixes. Personal preference, let's call it, but if 
> you're working for me you'll use suffixes, and if I'm working for you, 
> I'll use prefixes. So be it.
>
> Incidentally, I do similar things when naming queries in Access. (I never 
> use SELECT statements as either record source or row source -- I name 
> every query.) For example, Customer_qs, Customer_qa, Customer_qd and 
> Customer_qu. I don't think that I even need to spell out what they do, the 
> convention is so obvious, and it has the added advantage of intelligent 
> sorting.
>
> Arthur Fuller
> Technical Writer, Data Modeler, SQL Sensei
> Artful Databases Organization
> www.artfulsoftware.com
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: John Bartow <john at winhaven.net>
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving 
> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:35:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Naming Conventions
>
>
> Hi Barb,
> Reddick (or some derivation of it) is one that is commonly used in Access.
> If you have the Access Developer's Handbook (ADH) there's a listing of the
> conventions for Access in the appendix Reddick also keeps it up to date 
> via
> the web:
> http://www.xoc.net/standards/default.asp
>
> It was based on the Hungarian Conventions and was originally put together 
> by
> Reddick and Leszynski.
>
> I standardized on it a couple of years ago.
>
> Another convention:
> http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/xDatabases/aaIntro/DBNamingConventions.htm#
> All%20Database%20Objects
>
> HTH
> John
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>