TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041790156


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: [TMG] Sort dates - apology and restatement (short)
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 12:09:16 -0600
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030104174533.00a38a20@pop.sprynet.com><5.2.0.9.2.20030104104922.0306dec0@pop3.norton.antivirus><5.1.0.14.0.20030104084738.00a27840@pop.sprynet.com><88.21f14548.2b47be9f@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030104230553.04c7e490@mail.whollygenes.com>


At 11:08 PM 1/4/03 -0500, Bob Velke wrote:
>Darrell said:
>
>>The way you have described it is the way that TMG currently works, and I
>>understand that quite well. It is, in my studied opinion, simply not the
>>way the language works or that almost any non-TMG user would understand
>>things. Outside the TMG community, "28 Feb 1959 at noon" is NOT a
>>possible answer to the question, "name a date and time that is after 28
>>Feb 1959", and it still would not be a possible answer if the time were
>>11:59 p.m. But TMG thinks it is;
>> <clip>
>
>For the sake of those who aren't simultaneously following the "5.0x Sort
>Dates (Reprise Proposal)" thread, I am bound to say......
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>-Bob

Bob:

You are quite right, and my statement was simply wrong. My face is rightly
red, and I apologize. I allowed my enthusiasm for the subject to distract
me from making sure the example I used accurately reflected TMG's behavior,
and it does NOT. My argument does not apply to the comparison of structured
dates that both have day-level precision. I should have said:

Outside the TMG community, "February 15, 1959" would never be
a possible answer to the question, "name a date that is after
February, 1959". But TMG thinks it could be.

Darrell


Darrell Allen MARTIN
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois
www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy/


This thread: