TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041543127


From: "Bob Velke" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] General tags or VERY specific tags?
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:32:10 -0500 (EST)
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030102143956.05c10ec0@mail.whollygenes.com> <000001c2b29e$4b46e730$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd>
In-Reply-To: <000001c2b29e$4b46e730$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd>


Linda said:

>> 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 UFT made it so, right? It populated the two sort date fields with
the same value (and with something other than what you entered in both
cases) because it thinks that the two dates are equivalent. I think we're
saying the same thing.

>> 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.

Whoa. I didn't call anybody shallow. UFT is a good program. Some people
still think that it is the best program. A lot of people like the logic
that it uses for sorting dates - and that has nothing to do with how old
it is or what its interface is like. My point is that neither TMG nor UFT
(nor any other system I've heard) is more _logical_ insofar as sorting
inherently-unsortable dates. They are just different - although they
apparently differ insofar as they enoucrage you to think about what you
mean.

>> 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.

OK, sorry. You can get exactly what you want in TMG insofar as you have
described what you want in this thread.

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

Sigh. OK, sorry. I thought that you were being constructive is
discussing the design decision and offering alternatives. I thought that
I was being constructive by giving you some insight into what went into
the design decision, what alternatives we considered, and the conditions
under which we'd consider changing it. But you portray it as an argument
in which I'm bashing your chops.

Oh, well. Sorry that I misunderstood and that I couldn't be more help to
you.

-Bob


This thread: