Paul Blair <pblair@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>> I'm just resuming work in FTM 2006 after a break of a couple of years,
>> so I'm a bit rusty.
>>
>> I have a list of 8 children. One birth date I've entered exactly:
>> 03 Jan 1914
>>
>> 3 others are only within a Quarter:
>> Bet. Apr - Jun 1907 (the oldest)
>> Bet. Jul - Sep 1911
>> Bet. Jan - Mar 1919 (the youngest)
>>
>> I don't yet have dates for the other 4 intermediate ones, so for the
>> time being I've entered:
>> Bet. Jul 1907 - Dec 1918
>>
>> But after sorting by date,("Arrange the children on this Family View
>> in order of birth (oldest first)?"), they were displayed incorrectly
>> like this:
>>
>> Bet. Jul 1907 - Dec 1918
>> Bet. Jul 1907 - Dec 1918
>> Bet. Jul 1907 - Dec 1918
>> Bet. Jul 1907 - Dec 1918
>> Bet. Apr - Jun 1907 <------ OLDEST
>> Bet. Jul - Sep 1911
>> 03 Jan 1914
>> Bet. Jan - Mar 1919
>>
>> Why isn't the oldest shown at the top please? If it's a bug, seems to
>> have been around for a couple of years...
>>
>> --
>> Terry, East Grinstead, UK
>
>Hi Terry
>
>This is not a new problem - if you trawl the archives here, you will
>find that it has been discussed before. I doubt the problem is confined
>to FTM.
>
>Trying to sort date fields with abt., bef., aft., and all the variations
>is quite difficult to arrange. Dates - ie, full dates, d.m.y or m.d.y -
>are normally converted to an integer, and sorted that way. But add in
>the generalisations mentioned above, and creating an integer is
>difficult, if not impossible.
>
>The workaround is to figure out the correct order, and enter some
>spurious *full* dates that run in that order. Sort the kids, then go
>back and alter the real dates to the ranges you have.
Thanks, Paul, appreciate the prompt reply. Sounds a reasonable
work-around in the absence of some smarter programming.
--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK
|
