TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-10 > 1097275512


From: Darrell Martin <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Age calculator & irregular dates
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:46:39 -0500
References: <000801c4acab$395826c0$6401a8c0@D3134W31><1097186055.1538.46.camel@localhost.localdomain><6.0.2.0.0.20041007191828.025ba560@pop.sprynet.com><1097256061.3078.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1097256061.3078.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>


At 12:21 PM 10/8/04, Gordon Banks wrote:
>What problems would it cause?
>
>It doesn't have to be just to order things, it could also be used to
>correct other problems in TMG as it now exists.

Hi, Gordon:

The sort date cannot possibly be used to correct other problems without losing at least some of its flexibility in the area for which it was designed. As long as the sort date is used *only* to sort, the user does not have to balance (or choose between) multiple implications when deciding on a value for the field. The minute that ever changed, there would be justified howls of anguish from all of us whose sort dates are set based on the existing design.

The crux of the matter is this. If the problem you describe is worth solving (I think it is), then I would suppose that most TMG users would want to take advantage of the solution. However, if that solution were to change the way the sort date is used, I can't imagine Bob V. would force current users to abandon existing sort dates that are inconsistent with the new use. (If he did, he might find a lot of non-upgraders on his hands. It would be much worse, I think, than the v.4.0d-->v.5 holdovers.) So we would be forced to choose; use the new solution *or* keep sort dates for sorting *or* stagnate at the current version. I am sure that would not sit well with a VERY large part of the TMG community.

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy


This thread: