>There's a bit of a contradiction in your statement, Del.
>First you say that "Naming conventions and descriptive names are not mutually exclusive", then you go and say "...and the Dte is redundant when you have a type designator". What's wrong with "InventoryDate" or "InvoiceDate"?

I don't see the contradiction. Invoice is more descriptive than Inv. I was basically saying you don't have to abbreviate Invoice because your are prefixing with scope and type designators. The old variable length limitation has been gone for several versions now, has it not? Date becomes unnecessary if you have a type designator, so why do the extra typing? But, if you really, really wanted to do ldInvoiceDate, I suppose I'd get over it. :-)

>The article that started this thread says that MS (except the Word division) MIS-APPROPRIATED "Hungarian" and that things got so bad that they declared, for .NET, that the use of "Hungarian" was discouraged. I don't see how it could get any clearer than that.

I'm aware of MSFT's discouragement of hungarian with .Net. That's disappointing because I do like to try to follow the recommended guidelines. I may end up bucking that one, but we'll see. I only piddle with .Net at this point and am not sure when or if I'll really go beyond that.

>Sure, people have gotten comfortable with the mis-applied "Hungarian". But it doesn't always work (if you use "txt" as "Hungarian" for a Textbox you still don't know what's inside it, for example), so you don't really have a "standard" anyway.

Not sure how much I've actually relied on the txt (and so forth) type prefixes for UI controls in the past. I feel like most of my hand coding occurs in the business layer, so I'd say I don't encounter that as much.

>This is another of those near-religious issues in programming.

Amen. ;-)