RE: CamelCase For Procedures Names

From: <>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>

I like the example, it pretty much says it all (43 chars though).

What about suffixes or prefixes like R_for_procedures (or _R), or P_for packages, I did not catch Steve mentioning Packages and Package declarations in the paper? (btw I don't believe tables need a prefix or suffix).

I do like what Steve says about avoiding 'get' with regards to a function.

Joel Patterson
Database Administrator
904 727-2546
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Andy Klock Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:11 PM
Cc:; oracle Freelists Subject: Re: CamelCase For Procedures Names

The most important thing is consistency by a defined coding standard that everyone must follow. I don't even think it's because it makes the code more readable (though it does) but more because it saves so much time not having to think about what and how to call stuff. Developers should spend more time on the actual logic than whether or not to use CamelCaseWhichIsAnnoyingAsHellWithLongNames or easy_to_read_names.

An old friend and colleague (who I know is a lurker here:) turned our old team onto a document very much like this:

Make amendments to fit your taste. For me it made all the difference in the world.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Jeff Chirco
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 5:39 PM
> To: oracle Freelists
> Subject: CamelCase For Procedures Names
> I am settling a debate about allowing CamelCase procedure names within a
> package.


Received on Mon May 21 2012 - 08:00:32 CDT

Original text of this message