Michel, You are describing the implementation and accepting that a limitation in the implementation means that a feature is correct.
What you are telling us is that the design of the program is going to make it more difficult to provide the function in a way that most users seem to want it implemented. If the product is implemented and performs as it is documented to perform, then it is not a bug. But it can be an enhancement request which is saying that there was a bug in the specification. If the product is implemented and does not perform as documented, then it is a bug. I think it is a bug. But, I do not know if the bug is in the implementation or in the specification. Unless most users would like it left as it is. john. At 04:39 PM 3/20/2002 -0500, Michel Lacoursiere wrote: > >I have alerted the test list. There is likely a bug here. > >There is no bug here. The Name List without the AKA comes from an Access >table which also contains Birth, Christ., Dead, Buried dates and places, >among other things, so it is possible to sort it by Birth Date. > >The Name List with AKA comes from a different Access table which doesn't >contain the Birth Date that's why when you use the option to "Include >Alternate Names" the Name List is not sorted by Birth Date but rather by >RIN. > >The way it is working now is intentional, no bug. > >Michel Lacoursi�re >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You get a >different sort depending on whether or not you select including >alternate >names. If you do, the sort is the last name, given name, RIN which is >not >what most want. > >john. > >At 06:04 PM 3/20/2002 +0100, Sharon Ann K�sa wrote: > >Could you post exactly how the search is set up? If I sort on last >name, > >then first (given) names I get a list which automatically sorts on the > >birthdate in ascending order - just as it has always done. This is true >in > >Query by example or detailed search - also the same as when I use the >name > >list. > > > >Are you certain that your options are set right? > > > >Sharon > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 17:43 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Name List sort order > > > > > > She is correct and this is going to make it *very* > >difficult to search for J�n J�nsson, born 1742, when I have > >approximately 50 J�n J�nsson's in my database. It looks > >like I'll have to stick to Version 3 for data entry until > >this is fixed. > > > > Ruth Ann > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > I guess I wasn't clear. I am sorting primarily by last > > > name then first name. BUT, when last and first name are > > > the same, it then sorts by birthdate, or at least it used > > > to. Unfortunately, it nows seems to sort by RIN instead > > > of birthdate when the names are exactly the same. > > > > > > Example: (with the sort set to Last Name) > > > Old Way: > > > #456 John May b. 1857 > > > #342 John May b. 1872 > > > # 702 John May b. 1905 > > > > > > New Way: > > > #342 John May b. 1872 > > > #456 John May b. 1857 > > > #702 John May b. 1905 > > > > >To unsubscribe please visit: >http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > >Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > > >To unsubscribe please visit: >http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > >Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > >To unsubscribe please visit: >http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > >Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > >To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > >Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
