Thank you Ben. I agree with what you say and just hadn't thought of that -
because my mind was locked in on MM:SS.
So Mark gave me a piece of code that works perfectly in sorting the field
how I want. And now I recognize that Mark's code is NOT a workaround, but
just taking into account what you just said.
So the good news is: I'm no longer frustrated.
I guess the bad news is: I'm still weird!
Thanks for the lesson!
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Rubinstein" <benr...@cogapp.com>
To: "How to use LiveCode" <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: extremely weird and frustrating...
I think the point is that (since the new "guessProgrammerIntent" feature
that Devin spotted yesterday is no longer available today) the code for
interpreting as "dateTime" has to make assumptions when the data isn't
explicit.
Not unreasonably, asked to interpret dd:dd as a datetime value, the code
guesses that it is HH:MM rather than guessing that it is MM:SS. Whereas
asked to interpret dd:dd:dd it will definitely interpret that as HH:MM:SS.
So I wouldn't agree that
> What you proposed is a workaround because dateTime does NOT work
> properly, right?
At worst you could say that the implementer, forced to make a decision
about how to interpret an ambiguous input, made the wrong call (interpret
it as HH:MM rather than as MM:SS) - but I think it's a judgement call,
neither would really be wrong or right, just which is likely to be most
useful in most cases.
(Of course it's also worth noting that the way sort works is to apply the
sorting function to pairs of input. The dateTime evaluation is applied to
each piece of data in turn - there's no overall evaluation. An
intelligent human operator, asked to sort a dozen items, might start
interpreting them as HH:MM, then come across an instance which couldn't
validly be interpreted as HH:MM but could be as MM:SS, and therefore
decide to start over, now treating everything as MM:SS. But what we have
is a machine, implementing a relatively efficient and flexible mechanism -
which rightly precludes behaviour like that.)
Ben
On 02/04/2014 09:25, la...@significantplanet.org wrote:
Thanks John,
I'm not trying to be "cheeky" but I am frustrated. Sorry Alex.
John, what you propose may work - haven't tried it yet.
However, that still does not explain why WITHOUT the 0 in front of it,
9:14
was listed before 11:35 in my ascending sort. And just FYI, those are
minutes
and seconds I'm using and not hours and minutes.
My point is that it seems to me that the dateTime sort does not work
properly. What you proposed is a workaround because dateTime does NOT
work
properly, right?
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dixon" <dixo...@hotmail.co.uk>
To: "How to use LiveCode" <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:15 AM
Subject: RE: extremely weird and frustrating...
Another way to do this would be to put a 0 in front of the 'hours &
minutes'
before you sort them...
Alex, it trying to help you... no need to be cheeky !...
on mouseUp
set itemdel to ":"
repeat with count = 1 to the number of lines of fld 1
if the number of chars of item 1 of line count of fld 1 = 1 then
put 0 & line count of fld 1 into line count of fld 1
end if
end repeat
sort lines of fld 1
end mouseUp
would give :
01:22
02:08
07:47
09:14
11:35
12:16
15:56
16:33
25:34
34:55
From: la...@significantplanet.org
Sorry Alex, I do not understand.
16:33 is sixteen minutes and 33 seconds.
So why is 25:34 not twenty-five minutes and 34 seconds?
Last time I checked, there are 60 minutes in an hour.
> 25:34 and 34:55 are not valid dateTimes, so where those lines get >
> sorted
> to is not well undefined; it looks as though LC simply decides to
> give
> them a '0:00'.
>
> Apart from those two lines, it looks (to me) like the result is >
> correct.
> Isn't it ?
>
> -- Alex.
>
>
> On 02/04/2014 08:41, la...@significantplanet.org wrote:
>> Here is my script line:
>> sort field myTimes descending dateTime
>> 16:33
>> 15:56
>> 12:16
>> 11:35
>> 9:14
>> 7:47
>> 2:08
>> 1:22
>> 25:34
>> 34:55
>>
>> Here is my other script line:
>> 25:34
>> 34:55
>> 1:22
>> 2:08
>> 7:47
>> 9:14
>> 11:35
>> 12:16
>> 15:56
>> 16:33
>>
>> Seriously?
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
