[AccessD] Naming Conventions

A good point, Susan. In my case, of course, the answer is ME. However, I
prefer a tack that says "abbreviations are unnecessary". For example,
when any update query hits more than one table, in my book it's called a
molecular object, comprised of two or more atomic objects. Any procedure
that hits more than one table (i.e. hit = update, delete or insert) is
by definition flawed; it ought instead to invoke as many other atomic
procedures as are required. These rules keep naming conventions simple,
and even better, follow the standard laws of procedural and object
programming. IMO.

A.

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Susan Harkins
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:57 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions



While I pretty much agree with you I have not yet moved to the suffix
method.  Further I do have a problem with those developers who name
things without using abbreviations, such that you end up with
CustomerAddressesSortedByWhoKnowsWhatJustAsAnExampleQSel.  At least the
object type as a prefix places it at the beginning where it can be
found.

==============But who standardizes the abbreviations? ;) 

Susan H. 

-- 
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com