JayDee
October 29th, 2002, 01:41 AM
(Build 337 Pro, Win 2k SP3, Sony T675C)
During the beta test, I reported a problem I had with a number of entries, where brackets were incorrectly parsed (see here for details (http://www.iambic.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2354)). I think I found the reason for my confusion now.
I have a number of birthday entries created by a small tool (I don't remember which one I used). When viewed in the Palm Datebook, these entries have the format "[Last, First] Description". When viewed with Palm Desktop 4.0.1, surprisingly there is another closing bracket in the end ("[Last, First] Description]"). Anyway, I never stumbled into these strange entries, since ActionNames/Agendus (currently v. 5.33) has always correctly interpreted "First, Last" as the contact and the rest as description.
AGW, in contrast, transforms the entry into "Last, First] Description." as the contact, and no description assigned. Why not does AGW use the same algorithms that appear to have proven perfect in AG?
During the beta test, I reported a problem I had with a number of entries, where brackets were incorrectly parsed (see here for details (http://www.iambic.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2354)). I think I found the reason for my confusion now.
I have a number of birthday entries created by a small tool (I don't remember which one I used). When viewed in the Palm Datebook, these entries have the format "[Last, First] Description". When viewed with Palm Desktop 4.0.1, surprisingly there is another closing bracket in the end ("[Last, First] Description]"). Anyway, I never stumbled into these strange entries, since ActionNames/Agendus (currently v. 5.33) has always correctly interpreted "First, Last" as the contact and the rest as description.
AGW, in contrast, transforms the entry into "Last, First] Description." as the contact, and no description assigned. Why not does AGW use the same algorithms that appear to have proven perfect in AG?