RE: CamelCase For Procedures Names
- From: <Joel.Patterson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <kennethnaim@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:32 -0400
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: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Klock
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:11 PM
To: kennethnaim@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: JChirco@xxxxxxxxxx; 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:
http://www.toadworld.com/Portals/0/stevenf/Naming%20Conventions%20and%20Coding%20Standards.pdf
Make amendments to fit your taste. For me it made all the difference
in the world.
Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> 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.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
