On Wed, April 11, 2007 8:17 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: > I'd rather lose track of $row['foozie'] than $row[1]. Either way, if > your code is structured well, the row data should be in close > proximity > to it's use. At the very least, if your field names are informative > instead of 'foozie', maybe 'email' then I think you'll have less > trouble > remembering. This isn't really a religious issue... it's a clarity > issue. I mean, why bother naming variables if you think you might get > confused later. Just call your vars $foo1 to $fooX-- at least that's > the > path you've laid out as an argument. But I don't USE row[1]! And certainly not $foozie! I would have hoped that was obvious, but I guess not. :-( I use $email and I have it "close" enough to the source query, and with the name matching up (for simple columns) or very clear and descriptive names for calculated SQL values. I might do an aggregate count(*) with a group by and it's going to be called $count, if it's simple enough a script to remember what is being counted, since there is only one thing being counted. If I have both venues and cities being counted, it's $venue_count and $city_count. I don't really like carrying around the "baggage" of $row['venue_count'] everywhere, especially if I'll use the variable a lot. If I'm going to assign it to a well-named variable in 3 lines anyway, wny do I need it to be in an assoc array? I don't. -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
