TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-12 > 1007399361


From: "Bill Kullman" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Inconsistency using formatting codes
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:09:21 -0800
References: <3C0A8434.21705.C281EC@localhost><001701c17bae$45be2620$11c3fea9@oemcomputer> <3C0B8858.BF7CBD7A@reigelridge.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Reigel <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Inconsistency using formatting codes


> Bill Kullman wrote:
>
> > I tried to run an ancestor ahnentafel chart, standard
> > columnar....asking for 35 generations, which I assumed would be pretty
> > straightforward.
> >
> > It was...to generation 34, afterwhich the report turned to
gobbledygook....
> > still printing people, no AT #'s for about 4 or 5 pages. Tried that a
couple
> > times, looking for what might trigger the collapse of data.... then
changed
> > starting person...and had the same experience...so, I don't think it's
the
> > data, it must be the program.
>
> The problem is the size (number of digits) of the Ahnentafel Numbers
associated
> with so many generations. The problem is evident it you check the option
to show
> the numbers, as they become a mess before that, and finally completely
fall
> apart. But it doesn't matter whether you show them or not, as apparently
the
> program uses them or something similar to control generation of the
report, so
> it fails past a certain number of generations in any case.
>
> I understand this problem is caused by the limits in the way the Foxpro
system
> that underlies TMG handles (or rather fails to handle) large integers. I
don't
> know of any way to work around the problem other than to break the chart
into
> pieces, which is less than satisfactory. We can only hope that the new
version
> of Foxpro used by TMG 5 will deal with this better, but I don't know if it
will.
>
> Terry Reigel

Thanks Terry, but I'm not sure thats the answer, since I am a TMG convert
from UFT which was also a FoxPro based program, and in UFT I printed charts
to 60 generations or more. Granted its not something one does often, but
nevertheless, without the AT integers, how can we be sure our data is even
there correctly? I do recall that the number of generations that UFT
"could" report seemed to change with various versions...sometimes better and
sometimes more restrictive.

bill

This thread: