Re: Naming Convention for Columns

In article <3505ad61.266543@read.news.global.net.uk>, Keith Boulton <boulkenospam@globalnet.co.uk> wrote: >On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:52:07 GMT, jeff_kalchik@spammenot.mw.3com.com >(Jeff Kalchik) wrote: > >> >>While I appreciate your .sig line, I absolutely disagree with your >>naming convention. I'll fire anyone who pulls that kind of s**t >>working for me. It creates absolutely unmaintainable systems. I've >>got enough grief with underscores and dashes not being consistent; I >>don't need to worry about what's in T3.C47. >> > >I assumed the poster was being ironic. > >Having said that, I did work for an organisation once which had DB2 >naming conventions where table and column names were limited to 8 >characters. The first three characters were a system mnemonic, >followed by a five digit number i.e. select xyz00024, xyz00057 from >xyz11003. > > > > I worked in Basic+ with two character fieldnames... it was sort of maintainable, only occassionally would someone forget a name was in use already, causing payroll to... oh nevermind. -- These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest jgarry@eiq.com http://www.informationquest.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry "See your DBA?" I AM the @#%*& DBA!