TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0980417253
From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Sort Order
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:07:33 -0600
At 08:04 PM 1/24/01 -0500, Allen Mellen wrote:
>Darrell A. Martin wrote:
>I can figure out why a program might think that "after 1928" could mean a
>date *in* 1928, but I still call it a BUG.
>Let's be more accurate in our terminology. At most, I believe, it is a
>"design error." Its not a "Bug" because the program does exactly what
>the designer intended.
My terminology *was* exact, although I could be *wrong* <grin>. I would
rather believe that the designer did not ANTICIPATE the effect of (a)
defining the sort date "1928" as "sorting to 1928 Jan 1", then (b) defining
the sort date "after 1928", in a two-step process, as "after 'the sort date
for 1928' "; than believe that the designer (or a programmer imprecisely
coding to the designer's plan) actually INTENDED that "after 1928" could be
so thoroughly disconnected from the clear and plain meaning of the words.
"Works predictably and consistently, and does not halt the program or
corrupt the data" does NOT equal "is not a bug." Neither does "When the
programmer wrote the code, that's exactly what he had in mind"; I could
tell you stories, many of them professionally embarrassing to yours truly.
It's small, and has six legs on its exoskeletal body.* You can paint an
exact miniature of the Sistine Chapel on its carpace, and keep it in a
gilded cage; it's still a bug.
(* For the purists: An entomologist would add, has sucking mouth parts,
and something else I forget -- not all insects are bugs.)
A NOT-very-upset TMG user,
Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois
|Re: [TMG] Sort Order by "Darrell A. Martin" <>|