Re: Procedure naming conventions (WAS: Validate client name)

DeLong, Eric wrote:

Good for you! Keep your procedures short and on-point.

Seconded!

Naming conventions, like all standards, vary from shop to shop.
Personally, I never liked aaannn type conventions, since the numeric
component tells you precisely NOTHING about what this procedure does. I
like to choose names that seem to make sense when you read them in code,
like "Clt_NameIsValid" and "Com_NameIsValid". In use, your code reads
like a book:

I agree in general ... although I prefer to go with a more 'java-esque' mode ... so I'll have the major 'object' of my procedure as the first part ... and then the method as the 2nd part. For instance: for something that checks to see if an issue number is valid ... "Issue_isValid(issueNum)" or "Issue_setState(issueNum, newState)".

I abhor short names and numbered names ... for the same reasons Eric mentioned ... with the added reason that it harkens back to the dark ages of short variable names ... which has been known to cause PTSD type responses in some programmers.

david