"David W. Fenton" wrote:

Uh, what Steve wrote looks a lot like what I would have said if he
hadn't gotten there first.

Except, I probably would have been more harsh.

Ok, maybe I'll let Steve get away with that one then.

I think, because of the fact that Access presents a combination of
the TableDefs and QueryDefs collections in some contexts, that it's
crucial to distinguish them by a prefix (it could be just t or q),
and because they share a single namespace (i.e., you can't have a
query and a table with the exact same name).

Likewise, I think it's great to be able to have a table and a query
with the same base name, so you can tell that the query presents the
data from a particular table. This is particularly important when
you have ULS and need to use RWOP queries. Your tblPerson would be
edited via the RWOP query qryPerson. That seems to me to be an
extremely logical way of organizing things.

How would you do the same thing without prefixes? Suffixes?

Yes, I would use some kind of suffix.

Granted to each thier own.

But to me on a large FE it is very, very handy to hit the first letter
of a group of objects in the database container window and get there
fast.

That overrides any of the q and t stuff. I still maintain that's a
complete waste of time.

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/