extremely weird and frustrating...

Bob Sneidar bobsneidar at iotecdigital.com
Wed Apr 2 17:11:40 CEST 2014


I think he is saying that 9:14 and 11:35 is not a valid dateTime so the engine reverts to a text sort. There is no date in the dateTime. 

Bob


On Apr 2, 2014, at 01:25 , <larry at significantplanet.org> <larry at 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" <dixonja at hotmail.co.uk>
> To: "How to use LiveCode" <use-livecode at 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: larry at 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, larry at 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 at 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 at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




More information about the use-livecode mailing list