>>>> 2011/08/08 00:13 -0600, Mike Diehl >>>>
Well, I can see this being useful in assembly language, or strongly-typed,
non-OO languages. But I was asking specifically about SQL!
....
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 suspect it makes the most sense in weakly typed languages, and, therefore,
quite useless in table names. TAble names are not found in the same context as
field names, and the same name may be used for both table and field in the
table--field names, on the other hand, ....
In the PL1 (and scripting-language) tradition, although in the table definition
there is fairly narrow description of the type, much implicit conversion is
allowed. It is also in the PL1 tradition that operators yield values of some
vague type ('+' yields number, '||' yields character: no general operator
overloading), but with all the conversion it seldom is clear to the user what a
generated field s exact type is: even which numeric type, even which character
type, with what length. Then there is room for tacking type descriptions onto
names.
>>>> 2011/08/08 00:13 -0600, Mike Diehl >>>>
My personal convention is that table names are plural. Foreign indexes have
the table name as a prefix.
<<<<<<<<
To me a table is like an array, and therefore I make it singular: "invoice",
say, is an array of invoices, and "invoice [ 5 ]" is invoice 5. My plurals are
for counts of things; if "invoice" is a table, then
select count(*) as invoices from invoice
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
