On 2012-04-26, at 10:33 AM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Doesn't it go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the coding
guidelines to get around the parameter-naming rule by copying the
parameter to another data structure with a shorter name?

I'm with Barbara on this. Frankly I don't like your shop's naming convention - but I dislike even more the notion of adding duplicate definitions etc. to the code just to get past them.

For one it is confusing for any maintenance programmers following you. Can you imagine the time they will waste trying to work out _why_ you did this when the only real answer is "Because I didn't like the field names". There's also the possibility, nay probability, that the original DS will change at some time. Will everyone remember to change the renamed copies?

The other issue of course is that once the rules get broken every other programmer will feel similarly entitled. What if they don't like your names so they use you avoidance techniques to create their own renamed sets.

Sounds like a maintenance nightmare in the making to me. I don't care how bad the names are - this just makes it worse.

If you have spare time/energy convince the PTB to change the standard - but don't make things worse. Of course if you are using RDP then you don't even have to type the whole name - just let Crtl + Space do the heavy lifting!

Jon Paris


This thread ...

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].