If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
Klatuu wrote:
I thought I was the last remaining mainframe coder RPG II & III, OCL and CL expert here in the '80s. IBM S/34, S/36, S/38 and AS/400. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
Regardless of what the System 3x - AS400 cult leaders say, AS400 is not a
mainframe. It is the last remaining mini computer. -- Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: Klatuu wrote: I thought I was the last remaining mainframe coder RPG II & III, OCL and CL expert here in the '80s. IBM S/34, S/36, S/38 and AS/400. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
Klatuu wrote:
Regardless of what the System 3x - AS400 cult leaders say, AS400 is not a mainframe. It is the last remaining mini computer. Oh, absolutely. I never liked working on mainframes what little I saw of them. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
I certainly understand.
I started on mainframes, then went to a variety of minis, then to pc based networks. Most of the people who worked with AS400 really liked them. -- Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: Klatuu wrote: Regardless of what the System 3x - AS400 cult leaders say, AS400 is not a mainframe. It is the last remaining mini computer. Oh, absolutely. I never liked working on mainframes what little I saw of them. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
Klatuu wrote:
I certainly understand. I started on mainframes, then went to a variety of minis, then to pc based networks. Most of the people who worked with AS400 really liked them. I did too but then I saw Access and figured Access would be a lot more fun. I have a cousin who has been working on the AS/400 for about ten or fifteen years now. He was just telling me that despite his having taken courses on other technologies he get pigeon holed as an AS/400 person and he can't get a job in another technology. He is feeling quite frustrated. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
That happens.
I went through DbaseIII to Foxbase then FoxPro for a long time before I got into Access. It happened because a client had an old DOS Foxpro app he wanted converted and updated in Access. -- Dave Hargis, Microsoft Access MVP "Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote: Klatuu wrote: I certainly understand. I started on mainframes, then went to a variety of minis, then to pc based networks. Most of the people who worked with AS400 really liked them. I did too but then I saw Access and figured Access would be a lot more fun. I have a cousin who has been working on the AS/400 for about ten or fifteen years now. He was just telling me that despite his having taken courses on other technologies he get pigeon holed as an AS/400 person and he can't get a job in another technology. He is feeling quite frustrated. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
Wow, that stired up some opions.
I am creating a corrective action DB and wanted to be able to asign up to 3 (I guess) CA's per incident, so I wanted to make sure I was not causing myself potiential problems (future code writing) by simply naming these fields Ca1 & CaAssnTo1, ...2, ...3. Sounds like this is ok though. Thanks for all the feed-back David W. Fenton wrote: I like your rules, Pat. I use very similar rules with some minor exceptions. All field names are upper case and must include at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] FORMS AND REPORTS WHEN IN DESIGN VIEW. LET'S TAKE THIS PARAGRAPH AS AN EXAMPLE. I agree with your point, but your example doesn't work -- both paragraphs take up exactly the same amount of space in my newsreader because, of course, I'm using a fixed-width font (as is proper for Usenet posts, since there is no formatting). -- Message posted via AccessMonster.com http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...esign/200711/1 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
Actually it's not ok. This is exactly what we were talking about (at least
before we started reminiscing). Whenever you have more than one of something, you have many and when you have many, you should use a separate table so you can manage the 1-many relationship properly. The problem with limiting a set (aside from the fact that first normal form prohibits repeating groups) is that if you allow too many cases, you waste space and if you allow too few, you can potentially cause a lot of rework to expand the set. A more subtle issue, you won't discover until you start to write code and queries and that is that you'll have to deal with three fields rather than one. Three is not a terrible number to code around but we see many posters who end up with dozens and are very unhappy with Access because it doesn't work like Excel. "dcc15 via AccessMonster.com" u38772@uwe wrote in message news:7b7ef72a81e26@uwe... Wow, that stired up some opions. I am creating a corrective action DB and wanted to be able to asign up to 3 (I guess) CA's per incident, so I wanted to make sure I was not causing myself potiential problems (future code writing) by simply naming these fields Ca1 & CaAssnTo1, ...2, ...3. Sounds like this is ok though. Thanks for all the feed-back David W. Fenton wrote: I like your rules, Pat. I use very similar rules with some minor exceptions. All field names are upper case and must include at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] FORMS AND REPORTS WHEN IN DESIGN VIEW. LET'S TAKE THIS PARAGRAPH AS AN EXAMPLE. I agree with your point, but your example doesn't work -- both paragraphs take up exactly the same amount of space in my newsreader because, of course, I'm using a fixed-width font (as is proper for Usenet posts, since there is no formatting). -- Message posted via AccessMonster.com http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...esign/200711/1 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Numbers in table field names
"dcc15 via AccessMonster.com" u38772@uwe wrote:
Wow, that stired up some opions. smile Yup, some topics 20 people will post about 25 diametrically different opinions. I am creating a corrective action DB and wanted to be able to asign up to 3 (I guess) CA's per incident, so I wanted to make sure I was not causing myself potiential problems (future code writing) by simply naming these fields Ca1 & CaAssnTo1, ...2, ...3. Sounds like this is ok though. I'm with Pat. Don't do that. Create another child table and allow however many corrective actions are required. What if four or five are required. Users will swear to you "We only ever, ever do one or two. Never more than two." And after a month "Oh well, yes, that's a special case though. Never happen again." Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|