Re: Format date....
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 53630
interpreted = N
texte = Believe me, I hear ya, and I have (in the past) done exactly what you said (named a field in my db DATE, then called [DATE] within the founditems)... not pretty. I was just chiming in... my point was more to the issue of clearly naming the variables rather than re-writing the WebDNA engine in a manner that doesn't break existing websites. -Dan ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.StrongGraphicDesign.com (208) 319-0137 | Toll-free p/f 877-561-1656 ------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:50:24 -0800 Brian Fries
wrote: >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/ ------------------------------------------------------------- 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:
Believe me, I hear ya, and I have (in the past) done exactly what you said (named a field in my db DATE, then called [date] within the founditems)... not pretty. I was just chiming in... my point was more to the issue of clearly naming the variables rather than re-writing the WebDNA engine in a manner that doesn't break existing websites. -Dan ------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.StrongGraphicDesign.com (208) 319-0137 | Toll-free p/f 877-561-1656 ------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:50:24 -0800 Brian Fries wrote: >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/ ------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
"Dan Strong"
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:
Using Applescript to process WebCatalog functions (1998)
[WebDNA] .html extension (2012)
How do you TEAM Code? (2004)
Micro-managing External Links (2006)
[WebDNA] Grep out square brackets? (2010)
flushdatabases (1997)
RSS Feeds; basic info (2005)
Sherlock plug-in? (2000)
Summing fields (1997)
RE: Web*SSL and WebCatalog (1997)
Resolving variables into field names (1998)
Another bug to squash (WebCat2b13 Mac .acgi) (1997)
possible, WebCat2.0 and checkboxes-restated (1997)
Encyption mail was Suggestions for Topics ... (1998)
WebCat editing, SiteGuard & SiteEdit (1997)
Parameter Problem ATTN: Ken Grome (1998)
all records returned. (1997)
Error Lob.db records error message not name (1997)
cannot delete last admin (1999)
WebCatalog2 Feature Feedback (1996)