>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.
George
Ubi caritas et amor, deus ibi est