RichardB
This may just be faulty expectation on my part, but I found yesterday that the Comma Trick doesn't do quite what I thought it would. I have a thought called September below which I have been creating children called ',20 Sat'  ',21 Sun' ',22 Mon' and so on. So far so good. But after a few days I forgot to put in the comma and didn't notice till I saw the 'day' thoughts collating out of the expected sequence -- i.e., with September as the active thought, '23 Tue' was at the top of the list, instead of at the bottom after '22 Mon'.

So I renamed '23 Tue' to ',23 Tue' expecting this to work as it does on creation of the child thought, but it didn't -- '23 Tue' was still at the top of the list. However, cutting the Notes text to the clipboard, deleting '23 Tue', creating child ',23 Tue' and pasting back the Notes text works as you would expect and '23 Tue' displays at the bottom of the list.

By this stage I realised that what I ought to have done was to name the parent thought 'September,' so that I didn't have to type the leading commas for each new day. (It's easy to be wise after the event!) So I tried renaming 'September' to 'September,' and created a child '24 Wed' as a test. Nope, still at the top of the list.

In conclusion:
PB didn't do what I expected (but perhaps that's my fault).
There's an easy work-around as long as you catch the problem early.
It's even better to prevent the problem by using a trailing comma.
But you can't easily do this retrospectively
And it's not obvious from the documentation (that I've found) that this is what PB does in these circumstances.

Richard

XP SP3
PB Core 4.5.1.4
J-1.6.0_05


Quote
jostber
I think you got that right, and it would be great with a recursive comma feature.



TheBrain 8.0.2.2 Slackware 14.2 KDE 4.10.3 Java 1.8 / (Windows 7)
Quote
sfacm
AFAIK you should have renamed '23 Tue' to 'September,23 Tue'.
I understood creation time input ',23 Tue' as shorthand for 'September,23 Tue'.

I did such renames and they work.

Rgds
sfacm

Quote
RichardB
Thank you, sfacm. It worked fine when I tried it, too. But I suggest that it's worth asking the question whether that's the way PB ought to work, or whether it's a workaround. It seems to me that Rename should work the same as Create. That is, you have a parent thought A and a child thought B. You've already created the link so the relationship exists, but you forgot the comma. Should PB require you to rename to A,B? Or should it accept ,B as an elision of A,B? Anyone any views?


Quote

Add a Website Forum to your website.