Re: sorting by date senile?
Mark Waddingham wrote: dateItems can be used to sort, but you'd need to sort by each item in turn: put into tList repeat with n = 1 to 7 sort lines of tList ascending numeric by item n of each end repeat (the stability of Transcript's sort means that this works fine) That should be repeat with n = 7 down to 1 sort lines of tList ascending numeric by item n of each end repeat otherwise you finish up with the final sort being by the least important item; you want to do from "most minor" to "most important" in order for the stable sort to help. And you can do from "6 down to 1", not "7 down to 1" - who cares what day of the week it is :-) -- Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.0 - Release Date: 08/03/2005 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Thanks Hugh! I'll see what's easiest... Im just pounding a statistic analysis and this date problem really threw teh curve ball on me! Thanks for the function! I'd rather keep the standard routines though (i have lots of calculations for those already), and we only have files from this and the last century fortunately. However for some bizareness we have some that are dated before the computer age which is quite fantastic to say the least! ;)) Cheers Xavier On 09.03.2005 18:01:03 use-revolution-bounces wrote: >> convert "01/03/1937" to dateitems >> I got invalid date ;( >> >> Maybe we should switch to stardate ;)) > >I can't offer Stardate to you, but Julian dates handle the number of days >since noon 4713 BC January 1. These were posted by [EMAIL PROTECTED] >(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 16 Apr 2004 and may provide you with the >tools... At least they avoid the 'invalid date' syndrome! > > > > >/* date.julian return the julian count, i.e. days since 24.11.-4713 >@param d is the day >@param m is the month >@param y is the year >@returns is the julian count >*/ >function date.julian d,m,y >return (1461*(y+4800+(m-14) div 12)) div 4+(367*(m-2-12*((m-14) div 12))) >div 12-(3*((y+4900.0+(m-14) div 12) div 100)) div 4+d-32075 >end date.julian > >Example: >answer date.julian 13,11,2001 > > >/* get date.julian2DayOfWeek(aJulian) >@purpose Returns the day of the week according to: 1..7 for Sunday..Saturday >@param aJulian is the julian number. >*/ >function date.julian2DayOfWeek aJulian >--// returns 1..7 for Sunday..Saturday >return (aJulian+1) mod 7 + 1 >end date.julian2DayOfWeek > >Example: >answer date.julian2DayOfWeek 2452227 > > >/* date.julian2DMY aJulian,@d,@m,@y >@purpose Set the day, month year according to the julian date aJulian. >*/ >on date.julian2DMY aJulian,@d,@m,@y >put aJulian + 68569.0 into l >put ( 4 * l ) div 146097.0 into n >put l - ( 146097.0 * n + 3 ) div 4 into l >put ( 4000.0 * ( l + 1 ) ) div 1461001.0 into i -- (that's 1,461,001) >put l - ( 1461 * i ) div 4 + 31 into l >put ( 80 * l ) div 2447.0 into j >put l - ( 2447.0 * j ) div 80 into d -- day >put j div 11 into l >put j + 2 - ( 12 * l ) into m -- month >put 100 * ( n - 49 ) + i + l into y -- year >end date.julian2DMY > >Example: >date.julian2DMY 2452227,d,m,y >answer d,m,y > > >/H > >Hugh Senior >The Flexible Learning Company >Web: _www.FlexibleLearning.com_ (http://www.flexiblelearning.com/) >E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) >T/F: +44(0)1483.27 87 27 >___ >use-revolution mailing list >use-revolution@lists.runrev.com >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Mark, Thanks very much! I agree you rely on other subsystems to get your dates sorted and surely an improvement seems desirable! You're explanations are awesome and have clarified the obscure conversion problem I was experienceing on top of this other problem! Thanks again for your help! Im glad the RevPeople are joining the discussion! ;) regards, Xavier On 09.03.2005 17:53:09 use-revolution-bounces wrote: >Hi Xavier, > >> Thanks but that is rather arcane! I thought this was a modern tool ;) > >Perhaps a little arcane - Revolution currently relies on the underlying >OS for it's date conversion routines - which means time started at >midnight on 01/01/1970 for the most part. > >> Would using internet time or the dateitems format work better? > >The internet date, while ideal for transmitting dates (as you can also >encode the time-zone), is not really suitable for sorting as it is >designed to be human readable, more than machine processable. > >dateItems can be used to sort, but you'd need to sort by each item in >turn: >put into tList >repeat with n = 1 to 7 >sort lines of tList ascending numeric by item n of each >end repeat > >(the stability of Transcript's sort means that this works fine) > >Of course by encoding your dates in the form: >/MM/DD >You can just use a string sort. Similarly: >/MM/DD HH:MM:SS >Can be sorted using a string sort too. > >(the separators used in these cases is irrelevant, as long as it is >consistent) > >> repeat with x = 1 to the number of lines in histo >>convert (item 1 of line x of histo) to dateitems >> Result = nothing! convert puts the conversion into it! ;(( > >This is (relatively) consistent with other commands. The 'convert' >command expects a container as its first argument - and if one is not >supplied it will use the default container: it. > >In your above syntax you have forced Revolution to evaluate the >container expression as a string by using parantheses. If you were to >do: >convert item 1 of line x of histo to dateItems >It would do the conversion in place. > >> a little fix for this second weird thing! >> >> Date items now doesn't convert anything before the year 1970! >> >> Not in the docs either! Or did I miss that? Not in the limits either! >> I added a webnote to the rev docs and I guess this means a dozen >> new functions in XOS to handles these correctly! >> >> Since I suppose this wont work with the "seconds" for a "simple" numeric >> sort, we now have to resort to 3 sorts, one for each date item! >> Triple the inneficiency here! 6X if you use the time as a factor! ;) > >There is no trouble sorting the seconds numerically - but remember, the >seconds counts the number of seconds since 1970 :o) > >> >You will have to do some math, but you are good at that ;-) >> >> Im good at math - but I hate to do it for a system / person >> that is supposed to do it better and faster than me! >> >> I tried the usesystemdate but it didn't help. > >Setting the useSystemDate property causes the date and the time to >format their result using the current system locale as opposed to US >standard formats. > >> I dont dare use the centurycutoff as it makes things even more confusing! >> Where does the century start and stop now? > >The centuryCutOff property is only relevant when considering dates with >two digits and determines where the current century ends. If the two >digit year <= centuryCutOff, then it is assumed that it maps to a year >in the current century, else it assumes it maps to a year in the >previous century. > >e.g. We are in 2005, setting centuryCutOff to 20 will result in: >01/01/15 => 01/01/2015 >01/01/25 => 01/01/1925 > >Hope this clarifies a few things, > >Warmest Regards, > >Mark. > >-- >Mark Waddingham ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ http://www.runrev.com >Runtime Revolution ~ User-Centric Development Tools > >___ >use-revolution mailing list >use-revolution@lists.runrev.com >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runr
Re: sorting by date senile?
> convert "01/03/1937" to dateitems > I got invalid date ;( > > Maybe we should switch to stardate ;)) I can't offer Stardate to you, but Julian dates handle the number of days since noon 4713 BC January 1. These were posted by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 16 Apr 2004 and may provide you with the tools... At least they avoid the 'invalid date' syndrome! /* date.julian return the julian count, i.e. days since 24.11.-4713 @param d is the day @param m is the month @param y is the year @returns is the julian count */ function date.julian d,m,y return (1461*(y+4800+(m-14) div 12)) div 4+(367*(m-2-12*((m-14) div 12))) div 12-(3*((y+4900.0+(m-14) div 12) div 100)) div 4+d-32075 end date.julian Example: answer date.julian 13,11,2001 /* get date.julian2DayOfWeek(aJulian) @purpose Returns the day of the week according to: 1..7 for Sunday..Saturday @param aJulian is the julian number. */ function date.julian2DayOfWeek aJulian --// returns 1..7 for Sunday..Saturday return (aJulian+1) mod 7 + 1 end date.julian2DayOfWeek Example: answer date.julian2DayOfWeek 2452227 /* date.julian2DMY aJulian,@d,@m,@y @purpose Set the day, month year according to the julian date aJulian. */ on date.julian2DMY aJulian,@d,@m,@y put aJulian + 68569.0 into l put ( 4 * l ) div 146097.0 into n put l - ( 146097.0 * n + 3 ) div 4 into l put ( 4000.0 * ( l + 1 ) ) div 1461001.0 into i -- (that's 1,461,001) put l - ( 1461 * i ) div 4 + 31 into l put ( 80 * l ) div 2447.0 into j put l - ( 2447.0 * j ) div 80 into d -- day put j div 11 into l put j + 2 - ( 12 * l ) into m -- month put 100 * ( n - 49 ) + i + l into y -- year end date.julian2DMY Example: date.julian2DMY 2452227,d,m,y answer d,m,y /H Hugh Senior The Flexible Learning Company Web: _www.FlexibleLearning.com_ (http://www.flexiblelearning.com/) E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) T/F: +44(0)1483.27 87 27 ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Hi Xavier, > Thanks but that is rather arcane! I thought this was a modern tool ;) Perhaps a little arcane - Revolution currently relies on the underlying OS for it's date conversion routines - which means time started at midnight on 01/01/1970 for the most part. > Would using internet time or the dateitems format work better? The internet date, while ideal for transmitting dates (as you can also encode the time-zone), is not really suitable for sorting as it is designed to be human readable, more than machine processable. dateItems can be used to sort, but you'd need to sort by each item in turn: put into tList repeat with n = 1 to 7 sort lines of tList ascending numeric by item n of each end repeat (the stability of Transcript's sort means that this works fine) Of course by encoding your dates in the form: /MM/DD You can just use a string sort. Similarly: /MM/DD HH:MM:SS Can be sorted using a string sort too. (the separators used in these cases is irrelevant, as long as it is consistent) > repeat with x = 1 to the number of lines in histo >convert (item 1 of line x of histo) to dateitems > Result = nothing! convert puts the conversion into it! ;(( This is (relatively) consistent with other commands. The 'convert' command expects a container as its first argument - and if one is not supplied it will use the default container: it. In your above syntax you have forced Revolution to evaluate the container expression as a string by using parantheses. If you were to do: convert item 1 of line x of histo to dateItems It would do the conversion in place. > a little fix for this second weird thing! > > Date items now doesn't convert anything before the year 1970! > > Not in the docs either! Or did I miss that? Not in the limits either! > I added a webnote to the rev docs and I guess this means a dozen > new functions in XOS to handles these correctly! > > Since I suppose this wont work with the "seconds" for a "simple" numeric > sort, we now have to resort to 3 sorts, one for each date item! > Triple the inneficiency here! 6X if you use the time as a factor! ;) There is no trouble sorting the seconds numerically - but remember, the seconds counts the number of seconds since 1970 :o) > >You will have to do some math, but you are good at that ;-) > > Im good at math - but I hate to do it for a system / person > that is supposed to do it better and faster than me! > > I tried the usesystemdate but it didn't help. Setting the useSystemDate property causes the date and the time to format their result using the current system locale as opposed to US standard formats. > I dont dare use the centurycutoff as it makes things even more confusing! > Where does the century start and stop now? The centuryCutOff property is only relevant when considering dates with two digits and determines where the current century ends. If the two digit year <= centuryCutOff, then it is assumed that it maps to a year in the current century, else it assumes it maps to a year in the previous century. e.g. We are in 2005, setting centuryCutOff to 20 will result in: 01/01/15 => 01/01/2015 01/01/25 => 01/01/1925 Hope this clarifies a few things, Warmest Regards, Mark. -- Mark Waddingham ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ http://www.runrev.com Runtime Revolution ~ User-Centric Development Tools ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
>But i tested this one: >(fld 1 = 3/9/1905) > >... >set the centurycutoff to "00" >convert fld 1 to dateitems >... > >->1905,3,9,2,0,0,5 > >Does that help? yes but no... convert "01/03/1937" to dateitems I got invalid date ;( Maybe we should switch to stardate ;)) - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Hi, The centurycutoff system works from 1902 up. If you have earlier dates you will have to use another system. The reason is dates are calculated with the seconds. Gr W. On 09 Mar 2005, at 17:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Klaus, Awesome! But this doesn't solve a problem with the conversion of dates to dateitems prior to 1970s! I'll bugzilla that I think! Shouldn't the centurycutoff be defaulted to 00? I would seem more logical... regards, Xavier On 09.03.2005 17:00:56 use-revolution-bounces wrote: Try this one: ... set the centurycutoff to "00" sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each ... Works here for me: 01/06/1908 xyz... 01/09/1908 01/10/1908 01/10/1932 01/12/1998 01/12/1999 01/01/2000 01/05/2003 01/01/2004 Is this a bug? I am afraid this is a feature (of some sort...) ;-) Danke Klaus! Good going! Now im much less confused - but still scared of this feature! cheers Xavier - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Bon jour Xavier, Klaus, Awesome! :-) But this doesn't solve a problem with the conversion of dates to dateitems prior to 1970s! I'll bugzilla that I think! Sorry, only tested the sort thing... Shouldn't the centurycutoff be defaulted to 00? No idea... Maybe Dr. Raney knows the answer ;-) I would seem more logical... But i tested this one: (fld 1 = 3/9/1905) ... set the centurycutoff to "00" convert fld 1 to dateitems ... ->1905,3,9,2,0,0,5 Does that help? regards, Xavier Best Klaus Major [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.major-k.de ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Klaus, Awesome! But this doesn't solve a problem with the conversion of dates to dateitems prior to 1970s! I'll bugzilla that I think! Shouldn't the centurycutoff be defaulted to 00? I would seem more logical... regards, Xavier On 09.03.2005 17:00:56 use-revolution-bounces wrote: >>Try this one: >>... >>set the centurycutoff to "00" >>sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each >>... >> >>Works here for me: >> >>01/06/1908 xyz... >>01/09/1908 >>01/10/1908 >>01/10/1932 >>01/12/1998 >>01/12/1999 >>01/01/2000 >>01/05/2003 >>01/01/2004 >> >>> Is this a bug? >> >>I am afraid this is a feature (of some sort...) ;-) > >Danke Klaus! Good going! > >Now im much less confused - but still scared of this feature! > >cheers >Xavier > > >- >Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com >IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore >Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the >contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is >confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the >addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, >distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, >is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are >those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states >them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its >affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER >___ >use-revolution mailing list >use-revolution@lists.runrev.com >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
>Try this one: >... >set the centurycutoff to "00" >sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each >... > >Works here for me: > >01/06/1908 xyz... >01/09/1908 >01/10/1908 >01/10/1932 >01/12/1998 >01/12/1999 >01/01/2000 >01/05/2003 >01/01/2004 > >> Is this a bug? > >I am afraid this is a feature (of some sort...) ;-) Danke Klaus! Good going! Now im much less confused - but still scared of this feature! cheers Xavier - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Hi Xavier, Hi everyone, Im trying to sort a list of dates - nothing hard right? set itemdelimiter to tab sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each The dates are in item 1 - no prob. The dates are tested with month before or after... (all days are set to 1) But what I get is this! (or backwards!) - never mind the 2nd, 3rd columns... 01/10/1932 173310 2 01/10/1908 173310 2 01/09/1908 9523814 2 01/06/1908 419840 1 01/01/2004 2415830 11 01/05/2003 6293645 115 01/01/2000 5664075122 42593 01/12/1999 6476478340 39207 01/12/1998 3215445 1245 Try this one: ... set the centurycutoff to "00" sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each ... Works here for me: 01/06/1908 xyz... 01/09/1908 01/10/1908 01/10/1932 01/12/1998 01/12/1999 01/01/2000 01/05/2003 01/01/2004 Is this a bug? I am afraid this is a feature (of some sort...) ;-) I tested this in MC first and thought this was an old but but after testing it in RR 2.5 and get the same wacky result! cheers Xavier Regards Klaus Major [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.major-k.de ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
>This is probably due to the dates < 1970. >Dates from 1970 on up to 2032 will sort correctly by your syntax. Thanks but that is rather arcane! I thought this was a modern tool ;) There's goes another swing-around-that-sand-trap boguey! Would using internet time or the dateitems format work better? great! repeat with x = 1 to the number of lines in histo convert (item 1 of line x of histo) to dateitems Result = nothing! convert puts the conversion into it! ;(( a little fix for this second weird thing! Date items now doesn't convert anything before the year 1970! Not in the docs either! Or did I miss that? Not in the limits either! I added a webnote to the rev docs and I guess this means a dozen new functions in XOS to handles these correctly! Since I suppose this wont work with the "seconds" for a "simple" numeric sort, we now have to resort to 3 sorts, one for each date item! Triple the inneficiency here! 6X if you use the time as a factor! ;) This is senility before age! ;) >You will have to do some math, but you are good at that ;-) Im good at math - but I hate to do it for a system / person that is supposed to do it better and faster than me! I tried the usesystemdate but it didn't help. I dont dare use the centurycutoff as it makes things even more confusing! Where does the century start and stop now? I find this a big weakness in view of the rest of the sophistication of our beloved environment! Any stats, history, listing, calendar, etc is affected sooner or later! Any reason why this is still so primitive? Regards, Xavier - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
>have you check two properties : > > >a) usesystemdate >b) centurycutoff > >I think you can find an answer there. > >Greetings. Hi Yves, I did but they dont seem to provide further help - see the next post coming! I will check later though... thanks Xavier - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
Le 09-mars-05, à 15:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hi everyone, Im trying to sort a list of dates - nothing hard right? set itemdelimiter to tab sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each The dates are in item 1 - no prob. The dates are tested with month before or after... (all days are set to 1) But what I get is this! (or backwards!) - never mind the 2nd, 3rd columns... 01/10/1932 173310 2 01/10/1908 173310 2 01/09/1908 9523814 2 01/06/1908 419840 1 01/01/2004 2415830 11 01/05/2003 6293645 115 01/01/2000 5664075122 42593 01/12/1999 6476478340 39207 01/12/1998 3215445 1245 Is this a bug? I tested this in MC first and thought this was an old but but after testing it in RR 2.5 and get the same wacky result! cheers Xavier have you check two properties : a) usesystemdate b) centurycutoff I think you can find an answer there. Greetings. Yves COPPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: sorting by date senile?
On 09 Mar 2005, at 15:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Im trying to sort a list of dates - nothing hard right? set itemdelimiter to tab sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each The dates are in item 1 - no prob. The dates are tested with month before or after... (all days are set to 1) But what I get is this! (or backwards!) - never mind the 2nd, 3rd columns... 01/10/1932 173310 2 01/10/1908 173310 2 01/09/1908 9523814 2 01/06/1908 419840 1 01/01/2004 2415830 11 01/05/2003 6293645 115 01/01/2000 5664075122 42593 01/12/1999 6476478340 39207 01/12/1998 3215445 1245 Is this a bug? I tested this in MC first and thought this was an old but but after testing it in RR 2.5 and get the same wacky result! cheers Xavier Hi Xav, This is probably due to the dates < 1970. Dates from 1970 on up to 2032 will sort correctly by your syntax. You will have to do some math, but you are good at that ;-) Gr W. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
sorting by date senile?
Hi everyone, Im trying to sort a list of dates - nothing hard right? set itemdelimiter to tab sort lines of fld "dateIndex" datetime descending by item 1 of each The dates are in item 1 - no prob. The dates are tested with month before or after... (all days are set to 1) But what I get is this! (or backwards!) - never mind the 2nd, 3rd columns... 01/10/1932 173310 2 01/10/1908 173310 2 01/09/1908 9523814 2 01/06/1908 419840 1 01/01/2004 2415830 11 01/05/2003 6293645 115 01/01/2000 5664075122 42593 01/12/1999 6476478340 39207 01/12/1998 3215445 1245 Is this a bug? I tested this in MC first and thought this was an old but but after testing it in RR 2.5 and get the same wacky result! cheers Xavier - Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com IMPORTANT MESSAGEInternet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream International does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.END OF DISCLAIMER ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
