On Thu, January 22, 2009 1:38 pm, Stephen Russell wrote: > I found a new entry for an OOM and their example surprised me. > Table Name: tb_Users > > > Fields: > cod_UserName nvarchar(50) PRIMARY KEY txt_FullName nvarchar(200) > txt_EmailAddress nvarchar(50) dat_DateOfBirth datetime num_Dependents int > > In years of doing T-SQL or others, I have not seen examples of binding > the data type into the name of the object. > > In VFP code it is the norm for a lot of examples here. > > > Do you really need to cCompany dStartDate, iPeriods,... ? Or would > Company StartDate, Periods work properly but old habits just die hard? > > > This OOM page is : <http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/XGENOORM>
This link fails for me. Wait a second...M$ officially said to NOT use that kind of naming convention I thought...or wait...perhaps that was for variables in code? Yeah, I think it was variables (not table fields). Personally, I'd rather not use txt_, dat, etc. in my field names, but just c (for character), d (for date), t (for date/time), n (for numeric), etc. Consistency is the key!!! _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
