But the only reason that its "poor" is that you don't like it - it drives you crazy.

I'm all for 'descriptive naming' of variables, properties, methods, functions and procedures, and less so for field naming but *only* because of the impact on DB vs free and the column headings in browsing etc. But I must admit that camel is fine for me, using the underscore in rare circumstances only.

I've never seen the value of prefixing things - it destroys readibility in my eyes and has other 'costs' too. Especially for visually designed objects. I can SEE its a button and don't need a prefix to remind me. Similarly, a text box can hold alpha or numeric, so txtXxxxYyy doesn't really help either.

NONE of the standards currently in vogue is perfect. And you can adopt ways to minimize the (perceived) overhead of longer names, like copy/paste and global replace and with/endwith etc.

I have a genetic distaste for Humgarian, but when I have a program to revise that is already coded that way I continue the trend, in the belief that mixing it with my own preference is more harmful than it is good.

Looks to me that you are in a similar situation, and I'd bet that they'd agree to allow you to use 'descriptive camel' in your new programs (probably without Hungarian, but who needs that < S >).

Cheers,

JimN

>The real only standard is that you make they names of procedures, functions, variables as english as possible and put underscores in place of spaces. Some of these can become verbose and tedious to to work with. You could call that a standard but in reality it isn't (if you ask me).
>
>But, the whole reason for this is how can I introduce to them that the standard they currently use is poor without telling them it's poor? It's ironic that they hate the standard they currently have but they're not willing to change for a better because even the better one has flaws. Unless it's a perfect solution they don't want it. I know Camel Notation and Naming conventions listed in the VFP are not perfect but it's used more widely and it's considered more of a standard.