Nor have you any conceivable (sorry about the pun) way to know /definitely/ any given fact in your database.
We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What makes this one require special treatment? On a much lower level, yes, I do sort of object to adding *more* clicks and clutter to a screen -- any screen. Cheryl Pat Hickin wrote: > But if there is no /known/ relationship that resulted in a > marriage or in any /known/ children, you don't /have/ a > marriage screen. /All/ I am asking for is the ability to say > (on the individual screen) that the individual never married > /without/ making any kind of statement in regard to > children, since I have /no way/ of /knowing/ (especially for > a man and most especially for one long since dead) whether > he fathered children. > > It seems so obvious to me!! > > As for those of you who are weary of this discussion, just > don't bother to read the correspondence on the subject -- !! > > Pat > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Tony Slunka > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Tony > > As a programmer you know that for the statement "This > person did not marry and had no children" to be true > both parts of the statement must be true. > > If there is no marriage/relationship and no child the > you would mark the "This person did not marry and had no > children" > > If either part is false than either a child was born or > a marriage occurred. > > If a child was born than a marriage/relationship > occurred. The marriage screen allows you to mark "did > not marry" if this is the case. > > If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to > mark " no children" if this is the case. > > Tony S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages > > Jay > > I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional > programmer and database designer from 1972 until I > retired in 2004. I have designed and implemented > databases far more complex than that used by Legacy - > which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy > programmers. No database should be any more complex > than necessary. > > If I (or my team) ever implemented something which did > not reflect the reality of the situation we were > emulating, then we would consider it a bug. > > All Pat and I want is for the statement "This person did > not marry and had no children" to be split into two > halves, and for the "did not marry" half to be available > when there is a relationship record created in Legacy. > > If anyone has no use for that, then fine - don't use it. > I have no use for LDS ordinances, so I make no comment > about them. > > If a person did not marry, then that is something which > should be recorded at the individual level. It is a > little strange to suggest that the fact that someone did > not marry should be recorded in a marriage record. > > Yes, I have entered this as a suggestion through proper > channels. > > Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
