TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-12 > 0975691474


From: "Lorna McIntosh" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Dates in TMG
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:24:34 +1300
In-Reply-To: <01f401c05abb$00700760$626c8cd4@hstjw>


Ahh, I wrote that from my experience while still on 4.0.
Then I thought, I hope it still works with 4.0c
and oh dear, I now get the -999 as well.

A retrograde step in my opinion. Also a damn nuisance as I'd spent time
correcting my Q1 yyyy entries to the yyyy Qn format to read more correctly
back on 4.0

Testing it the other day on 4.0c, I was having trouble making an age
calculate for the person I was entering at the time, regardless of any Qn
etc, but now can't find the person concerned to see if it was a temporary
glitch. Memory has gone with age, and I didn't note who it was when it
happened.

Lorna
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugh Wilding [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2000 23:48
> To:
> Subject: Re: [TMG] Dates in TMG
>
>
> Lorna McIntosh wrote:
>
> > I've found that as long as you put the Q1, Q2, Q3 Q4 after the
> year in the
> > date field, that although TMG treats this as an irregular date, it still
> > manages to calculate the age column correctly.
>
> It doesn't for me - I get *% - 999* on screen in the Person View and
> *unknown age* in reports. I'm running 4.0c - are you?
>
> Hugh Wilding
> Berkshire, England
> <>
>

This thread: