Hello Thomas, On Friday, November 09, 2001 at 10:12:11 AM you wrote (at least in part):
B>> for what it informs you, no reply found ? TF> You are right. This is a serious bug. OTOH this could be correct, TF> under certain semantic and/or linguistic circumstances. It is worth TF> analysing academically before sending out the bug report. Is it? It TF> may be. ;-) OK ... let's have a look at it :-) What it tells you is correct. Why does it tell you? You don't have quested it to _not search_, you only told you don't believe that the reply has been written. So a logically algorithm can't know you don't want to search any further; but the question is not "is it logically by itself" because the program does not write itself (self-morphing program) but more it is written toward this logic by somebody. So the question is: is it necessary to follow this strict logic or would it make sense to change the program flow in this point? :-) So the (IMHO) semantically best solution would be changing the confirmation question to "This message is addressed to you but it is not marked as replied. Do you want to search for a reply nevertheless?" and the logic changes a way that one that answers 'No' to this question does neither directly nor indirectly tell the program to go on searching. Effect: the second message window telling "Reply not found" would become obsolete if answered no to the first question :-) Is this academical and theoretically enough to be acceptable? :-))) -- Regards Peter Palmreuther mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Bat! v1.54/10 on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2) JESUS SAVES, but Clones 'R' Us makes backups! -- ________________________________________________________ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
