>Hi George,
>
>>In your example, "tcOrder" tells me that it's a character string passed as a parameter. I see nothing wrong with the naming convention. However, if it were a field in a table, what would that tell me? Is it a datetime represented as a character string?
>
>CORDER returns many hits in Google, some related to re-CORDING. CORD is a synonym for STRING. Why shouldn't there be a field tCorder or tCordER which is fully compliant with the Codebook naming convention for fields.
>
>The problem with naming conventions is that most of them do not avoid collisions.

Christof,

Just to play devil's advocate here< s >, the biggest benefit of naming conventions is to make the code more readable.

I personally don't care if someone uses Hungarian notation or not. I don't care about whatever convention they use.

However, if "it ain't readable, it ain't maintainable". The biggest problem that I see with such conventions is that they can lead some "pointy headed manager" into enforcing them simply because they can. Readability should be the deciding factor.