In-house Reusable Code: Publishing and Documenting

I avoid the $ and # since some data transfer utilities cough on field
names with special characters, and the habit of avoiding those
characters persists in me.

One standard here was a prefix "X", but then the program kind of looks
like an old copy-pgm-append-suffix with names like XisGlCd. . . but that
kind of usage is just too cryptic for me.
Since we now have Longgggggg names, I always try to use Long names in my
source, and yes, that drives some people crazy, too.

But with a prefix of "exx" for External, then a system ID, then the
action-description, I find the code readable, such as
exxIGLbudgetAcctNotes and exxIRBgetFutureDate
And sometimes I create my internal SubProcs with names like "ixx" in
their prefix. It is what has worked for me.

But even within a shop, multiple standards are OK -- as long as each
standard is consistent in its overall usage.

- John V

. . procedure names starting with the dollar sign $. Personally, that

drives me crazy.

Nathan