[AccessD] On Coding Standards

Hi Arthur

His message is clear, that every standard or rule that may lead to
more understandable code should be applied.

However, those examples are bad. Quite often a loop is nothing more
than a loop and it's quite obvious that x is nothing more than a
counter.
More importantly, and what is not clear, is: why 0 To 10?
Where do these numbers come from?

Thus you should write:

  Const clngMonthThirdFirstStart  As Long = 1
  Const clngMonthThirdFirstEnd    As Long = 10
  Const clngMonthThirdSecondStart As Long = 11
  Const clngMonthThirdSecondEnd   As Long = 20

  ...
  
  For x = _
    clngMonthThirdFirstStart To _
    clngMonthThirdFirstEnd
    ...
    <do stuff>
    ...
  Next
  ...

It may look long-winded but it does pay off when you some day have to
look at that old code which you _did_ forget everything about ...

I prefer type-prefixes too. They prevent hitting reserved words or
names of objects; in fact when I look at some of my oldest code not
using prefixes it appears sloppy, and quite often I have to read back
to be sure of a type of some variable. Intellisense doesn't change
that.

/gustav


> The following excerpt comes from
> http://www.vbcity.com/forums/faq.asp?fid=30&cat=General&#TID30570. If the
> subject interests you, I suggest you visit there. Here is a preview:

> <article>
> What are coding standards? 

> Coding Standards can relate to all areas of programming. In this FAQ we are
> concerned with trying to convey information about an object by using a
> naming convention. Naming your objects in a predefined way means you can
> tell more about an object purely by the way it is named. 
> Lets take a standard Looping variable. If I call my variable 'X' it is not
> obvious what it does :- 

> Code:For X = 0 to 10 
>   ... 
> Next X

> If we change the name of 'X' it becomes obvious what it is doing :- 

> Code:For Index = 0 To 10 
>   ... 
> End Index

> Although 'X' is quicker to type, it is unclear what it is doing. This
> becomes more obvious when we have loops in loops:- 

> Code:For X=0 to 10 
>   For Z=0 to 100 
>     ... 
>   Next Z 
> Next X 

> For ParentIndex = 0 To 10 
>   For ChildIndex = 0 To 100 
>     ... 
>   End ChildIndex 
> End ParentIndex

> The second version is a lot clearer and explains what is happening in the
> loops purely by using 'Explanatory Names'. You may be tempted to save typing
> by using Letters or short names. Resist this temptation and Cut and Paste
> the name while using it. 

> </article>

> This does not apply to Access, except in narrow areas like creation of types
> or classes, but it's an interesting point nonetheless. Like many other
> listers, I have habitually created all my variables with type-prefixes.
> Given intellisense, this may be obsolete.

> What do you think?