>Actually, I think this is a waste of time in xBase too. It makes sense with variables because xBase is weakly typed (meaning you can put any value into any variable), so a naming convention tells the developer what data type is expected in a variable. However, fields in tables are strongly typed, so there's no need to use a naming convention to tell you the expected data type; just look at the table structure.
>
>My 2 cents (and I'm guessing I'll hear some opposing opinions <g>).
>
>Doug

Here's a couple of reasons why I disagree with this:
1) The type identifying prefix will prevent reserved-word conflicts;
2) Type identifiers IMMEDIATELY identify the expected value of a column WITHOUT having to refer to the structure.

What makes this habit such a useful one is it greatly reduces the PITA factor in development, especially in multi-developer projects. Think of it as a self-documentation feature. In other words, I can read thru someone else's code and know fairly quickly what is being done without refering to an external document. Same goes for including a table reference (table.fieldname).