Kerry wrote:
>>consistency needs to be the main focus
>
> yeah, but doesnt using plurals mean you cant be consistent?
>
> as per s.isaacs post:
>
> user(s)
> address(es)
Ack! Strawman argument! You're picking on a "weakness" of English rather
actually arguing about whether pluralisation is a good thing or not.
Say I'm a Spaniard or Hispanophone. Plurals in Spanish always end in
-es. Is using plurals for tables names more consistant in Spanish than
English? Of course not.
Or let's take Gaelic: nouns in Gaelic come in various declensions, and
the plural of a word varies depending on its declension (and various
complex phonological considerations: oh wait! that's why English has two
plural endings!). It could be -anna, -�, -e, -a, the noun could undergo
palatalisation of the final consonant, &c. Does this make using
pluralisation more consistant in English than Gaelic? Nope.
> as for the "box of developers" scenario:
> perhaps this has more to do with the english language, but there are also
> examples to prove the opposite.
>
> lets say I like the magazine FHM, and I have so many that I keep them in a
> box.
>
> Now, do I label the box "FHMs" or simply "FHM"? Which one "sounds" right?
Not a valid argument in its defence. You're picking on an English
language convention that doesn't have relevancy here, that being that
FHM is a single entity made up of various issues, ergo the singular
name.
Anyhow, why would you have a single table just for your copies of FHM?
> I dont think the way it "sounds" is really relevant, I think the fact that
> each row in the database "is a" (name of table) is logic that most/a
> lot/some???? developers like.
Ok, how's this:
1. In set theory, sets are given plural names because they are
*collection* of entities.
2. A set of "Doctors" is not a "Doctor", hence the "is a" argument is
moot.
3. There are times when singular names are appropriate, albeit not
often. However, these are only when the singular name refers to the
table as opposed to what it contains. A trivial (read "stupid")
example that springs to mind is some of the code behind my website.
I have a table called "linklog" that contains all the entries of my
linklog. I could have called this "links", but at the time that
didn't feel right. The URLs, as it happens, are the primary keys,
seeing as they're immutable. And no, textual keys are just as fast
as numeric ones.
Similarly, you might have a table called "catalogue", that contains
a product catalogue. Of course, "products" would probably be a
better name.
But when it comes down to it, this is all convention. I pluralise
because bits of SQL like "SELECT ... FROM products ...", "INSERT INTO
products ...", "UPDATE products ...", and "DELETE FROM products ..."
read better than me because these work on sets of entities as opposed
to singular entities. When it comes down to it, how it "sounds" is
really the only way of justifying it.
K.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking
application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a
client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:200715
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
