Student count for Class Registration
in [Tables]
|
From: Tom van Stiphout on 3 Mar 2010 21:41 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:16:01 -0800, Dennis <Dennis(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: My take on this is in my company's programming standards. Essentially it says: Even if you don't follow any of the many guidelines in this document, BE CONSISTENT. I think consistency is much more important as what the actual prefix (if any) might be. -Tom. Microsoft Access MVP > >Tom, > >Thanks for the info. I will play with it. > >Opps, I mistyped my query name. Query name should have been >qrytblClass_Count. My naming convension for better or worse is > >qry for a true query that answer a question. >qrytbl ... for a "logical view" of a table or series of joined tables >qryupd for an update query >qryapp for an append query > >etc. > >Do you have a better suggestion for a name convension? > >Thanks, > >Dennis >
From: Dennis on 3 Mar 2010 23:50 Jeff, Your comment: You could search on-line for "MS Access" and "naming convention" to get additional ideas. My Response: Opps, brain damage on my part. I should have known that, but thank for the reminder. I will do that. Thanks for the reminder. Your comment: I figure that the only Access object that starts with a "q" is a query, so I use "qlkp", "qapp", etc.... (JOPO - just one person's opinion) Reponse: Ah, simpler and it answers the question. Thanks. Dennis
From: Dennis on 3 Mar 2010 23:53 Tom Your comment: My take on this is in my company's programming standards. Essentially it says: Even if you don't follow any of the many guidelines in this document, BE CONSISTENT. I think consistency is much more important as what the actual prefix (if any) might be. My response: Your are preaching to the choir. I *strongly* agree. In one of my past jobs, I had to convert a small system written by one person. It consisted of 40 programs. Each of the programs was very different from the previous so each program was a new adventure in discovery. If they had been consistent, it would have taken about 1/2 the time. Thanks, Dennis > -Tom. > Microsoft Access MVP > > > > > >Tom, > > > >Thanks for the info. I will play with it. > > > >Opps, I mistyped my query name. Query name should have been > >qrytblClass_Count. My naming convension for better or worse is > > > >qry for a true query that answer a question. > >qrytbl ... for a "logical view" of a table or series of joined tables > >qryupd for an update query > >qryapp for an append query > > > >etc. > > > >Do you have a better suggestion for a name convension? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Dennis > > > . >
From: Tom van Stiphout on 4 Mar 2010 21:53
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:53:01 -0800, Dennis <Dennis(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: Yes, I have had similar experiences. Almost comical. One time a UI guy would every day decide what type and color of buttons he would use today. The resulting Christmas Tree was a firing offense imho. With source code I always look for consistency. As the poor maintenance programmer coming after our consistency-challenged developer you initially have to assume that all these subtle variations of a theme have a deeper meaning you have not yet discovered, but which will break the code if you change them. Only MUCH later you conclude the person was indeed challenged in this area and his employer did not get value for the money. -Tom. Microsoft Access MVP >Tom > > >Your comment: My take on this is in my company's programming standards. >Essentially it says: Even if you don't follow any of the many guidelines in >this document, BE CONSISTENT. > >I think consistency is much more important as what the actual prefix (if >any) might be. > > >My response: Your are preaching to the choir. I *strongly* agree. In one >of my past jobs, I had to convert a small system written by one person. It >consisted of 40 programs. Each of the programs was very different from the >previous so each program was a new adventure in discovery. If they had been >consistent, it would have taken about 1/2 the time. > >Thanks, > >Dennis > > >> -Tom. >> Microsoft Access MVP >> >> >> > >> >Tom, >> > >> >Thanks for the info. I will play with it. >> > >> >Opps, I mistyped my query name. Query name should have been >> >qrytblClass_Count. My naming convension for better or worse is >> > >> >qry for a true query that answer a question. >> >qrytbl ... for a "logical view" of a table or series of joined tables >> >qryupd for an update query >> >qryapp for an append query >> > >> >etc. >> > >> >Do you have a better suggestion for a name convension? >> > >> >Thanks, >> > >> >Dennis >> > >> . >> |