TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041537960


From: Bob Velke <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] General tags or VERY specific tags?
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 15:13:48 -0500
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030102132413.02ffd560@pop3.norton.antivirus>
In-Reply-To: <000b01c2b293$ff76fd40$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd>


Linda said that UFT sorts like this:

> before 1 Jan 1800
> before 1800
> 1 Jan 1800
> after 1 Jan 1800
> after 1800

Somebody please explain to me where the logic is in that? "Before 1800"
comes AFTER "before 1 Jan 1800" but BEFORE "1 Jan 1800"? "Before a _year_"
is less than a date in that year but greater than before that date?

>IMHO, UFT is sorting correctly, treating the first two as identical sort
>dates and had I entered "before 1800" first, it would have appeared
>first in the list.

Whether or not you happen to agree with UFT that "before 1 Jan 1800" is
equivalent to "before 1800" (and I don't <g>), they are surely not
identical. It is logical to you that the sequence of non-identical dates
is determined by the order in which you happened to enter them??

I said that I wasn't going to debate this now <g>. I'm only making the
point that being familiar with a different system (your intuition or a
different software program) doesn't make it more logical. There is no
inherent logic in sorting qualified dates of different levels of
specificity and any system that dictates one is not doing you in
favors. You can get exactly what you want in TMG. If the difference is
that TMG makes you think about what you really mean, then more's the better.

-Bob

This thread: