On Saturday 06 August 2011 10:58:43 am Jan Steinman wrote:
> > From: Johnny Withers <[email protected]>
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation
Well, I can see this being useful in assembly language, or strongly-typed,
non-OO languages. But I was asking specifically about SQL!
When will this EVER make sense:?
select * from intCustomers;
We know from context that customers is a table and it makes no sense at all to
prefix a type to it in order to make the obvious more clear.
I guess we could have:
select * from viewCustomers;
or
select * from tblCustomers:
But really?
My personal convention is that table names are plural. Foreign indexes have
the table name as a prefix. For example.
create table customers (
id integer, index.
companies_id integer,
name varchar(20)
);
Obviously, companies_id is a reference to the id field in a table called
companies.
Just my $.02, but any comments are welcome.
> "The original Hungarian notation... was invented by Charles Simonyi... who
> later became Chief Architect at Microsoft."
>
> Ugh. That explains a lot!
>
> The only time I let types intrude on names is with booleans, which I try to
> name with a state-of-being verb, such as "has_paid", "is_member",
> "has_children", etc.
>
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Mike Diehl <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Well, while we're on the subject of SQL style, can anyone tell me why
> >> I'm always seeing people prefixing the name of a table with something
> >> like "tbl?"
>
> ----------------
> You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do
> something about its width and depth. -- H. L. Mencken
>
> :::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::
--
Take care and have fun,
Mike Diehl.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[email protected]
