Roberto, although your original question was what should you name your future procs, the example given, permissions, is the renaming of an existing set of procs. The example in this thread is again an example of trivially renaming an existing proc, ad_parameter. No, this does not mean that *all* procs will be renamed, but some procs have been, and some more procs will be.
However, I then went on to explain that I think a standard naming scheme is important, why, and how I got the idea. As it's such wide spread practice I assumed it was the general opinion here, which seems to be the case as there is now an effort to formally record such a standard. If standard naming is important, and there is a new naming standard, then is it such a leap to believe that the work to rename some of the existing procs will be carried forward to the rest of them?
You seem to have missed it but I also then explained why I think *not* carrying through with a new naming scheme renders any notion of creating consistency through a standard naming scheme obsurd, as the opposite of the desired effect is created. This is another reason why I thought the plan must be to rename all -- or should I say a large percentage of -- the old procs.
Don, I think your right I must be a twit because I'm still confused. You mention your newly developed proc, ad_form as an example which does not use namespaces. But you also say namespaces must be used, when Roberto asked about developing new procs. Do you mean to say that either the old established style with underscores or the new namepsace style are both acceptable? What is the goal of introducing another naming style and enforcing it incosistently?
Could we also please have a commitment, folks not just a begruged shrug, to communicate this sort of stuff in a timely manner, with enough facts and some semblance of reasoning as appropriate, so that everyone is kept in the loop and inteligent desision making, where necessary, is actually possible? This is my main point of frustration.
