Re: Format date....

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2003


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 53629
interpreted = N
texte = Unfortunately, they can't rename the [date] field in an order file without breaking tons of existing code that expects [date] to be the order's date within an orderfile context. As for not behaving the same as the global [date] tag, that's because its a field in a special-case database, not a WebDNA tag. The behavior is the same as if you created your own database with a field named "date" then tried to access the date context within a founditems on that database. - brian On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 09:43 AM, Dan Strong wrote: > My $0.02 would be to name them [ORDER_DATE] & [ORDER_TIME] > -Dan > > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:44:31 -0600 > Donovan Brooke wrote: >> I actually agree with you Alan that these two date >> contexts should have been named differently but it has >> always been that way. I think it is silly to have them >> the same name... they don't even perform the same. >> I vote to change the name of the orderfile tags to: >> [ODATE][OTIME]! >> (I've stated this before but my ideas to the list rarely >> seem to get feedback :-( Maybe I'm a freak!? (well that's >> already been established) >> >> Also to note: >> Scott did mention: >> >> If you are using WebDNA 5, you can 'scope out' to the global [date] >> and >> [time] tags, when inside an orderfile context, using the scope >> resolution >> operator '::'. >> >> [::date] >> [::time] >> >> >> Donovan >> >> >> Alan White wrote: >> >>> Thanks Mark, that did the trick :D >>> >>> That's kind of weird that it was having problems in the orderfile, >>> surely >>> date is something that is very important when it comes to orders??? >>> >>> Oh well, cheers for your suggestion. >>> >>> Alan -- Brian Fries, BrainScan Software -- http://www.brainscansoftware.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Format date.... ( Donovan Brooke 2003)
  2. Re: Format date.... ( Matthew Bohne 2003)
  3. Re: Format date.... ( Donovan Brooke 2003)
  4. Re: Format date.... ( "Dan Strong" 2003)
  5. Re: Format date.... ( Brian Fries 2003)
  6. Re: Format date.... ( Gary Krockover 2003)
  7. Re: Format date.... ( "Dan Strong" 2003)
  8. Re: Format date.... ( Donovan Brooke 2003)
  9. Re: Format date.... ( Mark Derrick 2003)
  10. Re: Format date.... ( Alan White 2003)
  11. Re: Format date.... ( Mark Derrick 2003)
  12. Format date.... ( Alan White 2003)
Unfortunately, they can't rename the [date] field in an order file without breaking tons of existing code that expects [date] to be the order's date within an orderfile context. As for not behaving the same as the global [date] tag, that's because its a field in a special-case database, not a WebDNA tag. The behavior is the same as if you created your own database with a field named "date" then tried to access the date context within a founditems on that database. - brian On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 09:43 AM, Dan Strong wrote: > My $0.02 would be to name them [ORDER_DATE] & [ORDER_TIME] > -Dan > > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:44:31 -0600 > Donovan Brooke wrote: >> I actually agree with you Alan that these two date >> contexts should have been named differently but it has >> always been that way. I think it is silly to have them >> the same name... they don't even perform the same. >> I vote to change the name of the orderfile tags to: >> [ODATE][OTIME]! >> (I've stated this before but my ideas to the list rarely >> seem to get feedback :-( Maybe I'm a freak!? (well that's >> already been established) >> >> Also to note: >> Scott did mention: >> >> If you are using WebDNA 5, you can 'scope out' to the global [date] >> and >> [time] tags, when inside an orderfile context, using the scope >> resolution >> operator '::'. >> >> [::date] >> [::time] >> >> >> Donovan >> >> >> Alan White wrote: >> >>> Thanks Mark, that did the trick :D >>> >>> That's kind of weird that it was having problems in the orderfile, >>> surely >>> date is something that is very important when it comes to orders??? >>> >>> Oh well, cheers for your suggestion. >>> >>> Alan -- Brian Fries, BrainScan Software -- http://www.brainscansoftware.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ Brian Fries

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

RequiredFields template (1997) ImageMagick (2005) WebDNA 5.0 Questions (2003) Reversed words (1997) Sorting Numbers (1997) Snake Bites (1997) Re:quit command on NT (1997) [WebDNA] WebDNA 8 (2014) Card clearance, problems - solutions? (1997) WebCat on 10.0.4 - iTools 6.0 (2001) OT: Prevent Caching js Files (2003) RE: Problems reading files created by WC (1997) Event Calendar (2004) [WriteFile] problems (1997) using showpage and showcart commands (1996) bug in [SendMail] (1997) Server slowing down. (1997) OT-JS why it does not run on Mac (2001) How to Display text in empty fields (1997) 2.0 Info (1997)