TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041539640


From: Linda Gaylord-Kuhn <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] General tags or VERY specific tags?
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 14:34:00 -0600
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030102143956.05c10ec0@mail.whollygenes.com>


Bob Velke wrote:
> 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.

You missed the point, Bob, but I could have worded it better. Let me
rephrase. The *Sort Date* (which is devoid of modifiers in UFT, unlike
in TMG) is "12/31/1799" for both "before 1 Jan 1800" and "before 1800".
Because the Sort Dates are identical, UFT has no way of knowing which of
the two should sort first. So, it merely listed them in Entry Order.

> 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.

The dates "before 1 Jan 1800" and "before 1800" are not identical. But
since UFT does not use qualifiers in the SORT DATE (i.e. 12/31/1799) the
tags sort as if they _were_ identical. This is a limitation in UFT; it
is not designed to sort on qualified dates.

>It is logical to you that the sequence of non-identical dates
> is determined by the order in which you happened to enter them??

It is logical to me that two IDENTICAL SORT DATES sort in Entry Order,
yes.

> 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.

I'm sorry you think I'm shallow enough to "side" with an old, dead
16-bit POS program just because I'm familiar with it. You're greatly
mistaken in that. I'm here because I bought TMG and want to use it.
Unfortunately I'm having a very rough go at getting my data from UFT to
TMG intact. Date qualifiers are part of my problem, but that's another
long thread in the making. I don't blame TMG, I don't blame UFT. I
just want my dad-blasted data intact in a program that will do what I
need it to do.

> 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.

No duh!

> You can get exactly what you want in TMG.

No, I can't get "exactly" what I want in TMG ... or any other program.
But that's another thread, too.

> If the difference is
> that TMG makes you think about what you really mean, then more's the
> better.

Seems to me I've been trying to make TMG think about what I really mean,
not the other way round.

Thanks for taking time out from your busy schedule to bash my chops.

Linda


This thread: