>Hi mike,
>
>As you´d probably know, I don´t agree with the three-character prefix, especially for bizz objects.
>
>With this notation you´re combining the logical function of the class to the technical implementation which is just plain stupid if you´d ask me.
This problem is omnipresent in vfp. For example, a field named cLastName, where c indicates it's of type Character. Or, lcLastName, where l and c are only technical details and LastName is the function description.
You need a new/other language/IDE if you want to do something about this problem. In that IDE you define a field, variable, class in terms of properties. One of the properties is 'Function description'. Another prop is 'Datatype', yet another one is 'Scope', etcetera. And there is only one place where it can be changed. Moreover, in that IDE you can switch between views. In one view you only see the descriptors, in another view you also see the technical details like datatype and scope. How about that. Shall we start writing that IDE?
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
