Re: _ in front of field name

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1998


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 18912
interpreted = N
texte = >At 13:31 Uhr 15.07.1998, Sue Ann Sanders wrote: >>What is the significance of a _ in front of the field names within a >>form? I believe this was done automatically when I used the database >>helper.? > >It is a good idea to have a naming convention to avoid equal names for >fields and WebCat commands. Imagine you name a field of your form date >for the birthday. If you ask for this field on the following page, you >write for example: >Since you are born on [date] you are too old... >In this case WebCat will NOT insert the form field but todays date because >[date] is a command! > >So, if you name all form fields and variables according to such a naming >convention, you will never make a similar mistake. That is why you see >often names like [_date], [v.email] or similar in the code of other people.So once again I'd like to petition for a [today] instead of the current [date] function. then, [showif [date]=[today]] would work really nicely (and be easy to understand)! Brian B. Burton BOFH - Department of Redundancy Department --------------------------------------------------------------- MMT Solutions - Specializing in Online Shopping Solutions 973-808-8644 http://www.safecommerce.comAre you a Web Programmer? I am today. Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: _ in front of field name (Kenneth Grome 1998)
  2. Re: _ in front of field name (Kenneth Grome 1998)
  3. Re: _ in front of field name (Peter Ostry 1998)
  4. Re: _ in front of field name (Brian B. Burton 1998)
  5. Re: _ in front of field name (John Hill 1998)
  6. Re: _ in front of field name (Sue Ann Sanders 1998)
  7. Re: _ in front of field name (Peter Ostry 1998)
  8. _ in front of field name (Sue Ann Sanders 1998)
>At 13:31 Uhr 15.07.1998, Sue Ann Sanders wrote: >>What is the significance of a _ in front of the field names within a >>form? I believe this was done automatically when I used the database >>helper.? > >It is a good idea to have a naming convention to avoid equal names for >fields and WebCat commands. Imagine you name a field of your form date >for the birthday. If you ask for this field on the following page, you >write for example: >Since you are born on [date] you are too old... >In this case WebCat will NOT insert the form field but todays date because >[date] is a command! > >So, if you name all form fields and variables according to such a naming >convention, you will never make a similar mistake. That is why you see >often names like [_date], [v.email] or similar in the code of other people.So once again I'd like to petition for a [today] instead of the current [date] function. then, [showif [date]=[today]] would work really nicely (and be easy to understand)! Brian B. Burton BOFH - Department of Redundancy Department --------------------------------------------------------------- MMT Solutions - Specializing in Online Shopping Solutions 973-808-8644 http://www.safecommerce.comAre you a Web Programmer? I am today. Brian B. Burton

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Search for starts with and ends with? (2003) RE: Answer: WebDelivery downloads alias, not original ? (1997) Displaying text and populating form fields (again) (2005) NEW NetProfessional Revealed (1998) searching with if/then (2004) Bugs? What Bugs? was:Spawning Holdup? (2000) What am I doing wrong? (2000) (2002) [date] inside orderfile (2000) How to Display text in empty fields (1997) math variable security (2000) Looking for a Manual (1997) serial number dishing (1997) Tax Moratorium Expiring (2001) Web Catalog 2 demo (1997) Server slowing down. (1997) [OT] (waaaay OT) (2004) Renaming textA (1998) CMS - Formatting Content (2004) Opinion: [input] should be called [output] ... (1997)