Mysql Naming Convention
jonathan at carnageblender.com
Wed Apr 19 08:00:31 MDT 2006
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:28:59 -0500, "Michael Halcrow" <mike at halcrow.us>
> > Wow, that is really bizarre logic.
> > Would you name an array "employee" because it is a single reference?
> > No;
> > that would be confusing: containers should be pluralized.
> > Similarly, a table contains multiple rows of a certain type.
> Not necessarily. A table could ever only be intended to contain a
> single row. And, in any case, it is debatable whether you can validly
> think of a single field in a table as a ``container.'' But to continue
> the pedantics...
> Perhaps one may think of table definitions as analogous to struct
> definitions for struct types that are later used in an array or linked
> list declaration. Would you pluralize the individual struct members in
> that case, or only pluralize the actual struct array alias?
Although it is occasionally useful to think of tables as type
because of the nature of SQL it is most often more useful to think of
them as sets. Hence the collection analogy.
But as I said before, column names should be singular. If someone else
said otherwise, well, it wasn't me. And he's wrong. :)
C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce. --Scott McKay
More information about the PLUG