Re: Naming Convention for Columns

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:39:47 GMT, boulkenospam_at_globalnet.co.uk (Keith Boulton) wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:52:07 GMT, jeff_kalchik_at_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.

It's possible Billy Verreynne was being ironic; I didn't read it that way. I know I certainly wasn't. Received on Wed Mar 11 1998 - 00:00:00 CST