TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041467419


From: "Stuart Armstrong" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] General tags or VERY specific tags?
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:30:19 -0700
References: <002901c2b1f3$fa2d7e90$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd>
In-Reply-To: <002901c2b1f3$fa2d7e90$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd>


Linda,
Haven't been following this thread, but doesn't "by" mean essentially the same thing as "before"? Yeah, I know, it's a slightly different thought process, but the end result of the meaning is essentially the same. If you replace all your bys to befores, nothing is corrupted, unless you insist that "by 1800" includes 1800 but "before 1800" stops at 1799. But I always interpreted such dates as approximations anyway.
But I've always wanted date and place modifier fields so you're not limited to the pre-defined list. After all, we want to be sure the programmer who maintains the date interpretation module has plenty to do <G>!

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 1/1/03, Linda Gaylord-Kuhn wrote:

>I'm going to miss not being able to use the "by" modifier for
>"regular" dates in TMG. I used it a _lot_ in the UFT date fields.

Stuart Armstrong
mail to:
web page: http://cgi.aros.net/~stuarta

This thread: