UtterAccess.com
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome to UtterAccess! Please ( Login   or   Register )

Custom Search
 
   Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Reddick-gray Unified Naming Convention., Any Version    
 
   
Jaiket
post Dec 21 2017, 05:01 AM
Post#1



Posts: 293
Joined: 3-May 17
From: France


Hello,
Looking through publications about naming conventions, the most recent thing I can find is the Reddick-Gray unified one. I can't find a single comment on them anywhere, except one broken link in UA which recommends them. I am currently implementing Reddick-Gray simply because it is more recent then the others I could find, which is not a valid reason.

Does anyone here recommend or discourage Reddick-Gray unified?
Go to the top of the page
 
DanielPineault
post Dec 21 2017, 05:48 AM
Post#2


UtterAccess VIP
Posts: 6,130
Joined: 30-June 11



It's not a question of which convention you use, it is more a question that you follow a naming convention, any naming convention. You can even use your own if you like. It is more about following a standard that you, and others, can follow throughout your coding. It makes understanding code much simpler.

Also, just because it is newer, doesn't make it any better, or worse. It just makes it newer.


Have you seen



just for more option.


and then there is always theAccessWeb's http://access.mvps.org/access/general/gen0012.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
GroverParkGeorge
post Dec 21 2017, 06:26 AM
Post#3


UA Admin
Posts: 33,786
Joined: 20-June 02
From: Newcastle, WA


I wholeheartedly agree with Daniel.

The point of a naming convention is that all of the names in YOUR projects are consistent. Beyond that, you are free to adopt whatever seems most comfortable, or logical, or cool to you.

Besides, if you start chasing the most recent naming convention, won't you end up changing your own names from time to time, thereby leading to inconsistent naming across generations of your work?
Go to the top of the page
 
Jaiket
post May 17 2018, 04:17 PM
Post#4



Posts: 293
Joined: 3-May 17
From: France


More info for anyone looking into Reddick-Gray naming convention..Some of table 7 in Version 1.01 made no sense and was obviously a big error. I looked on the web and discovered that this is about as obscure as you can get.
It would appear that a version 2.0 came out in 2015, but the guy's site is now unavailable, and I can't find version 2.0. Google has less than 1000 results for "Reddick-Gray", and a lot of them are about other things. In fact this post is the first relevant result.
However, I am implementing them anyway, having already come so far. I have no experience with anything else to compare with.


Go to the top of the page
 


Custom Search
RSSSearch   Top   Lo-Fi    21st October 2018 - 09:22 AM