VanguardLH,

I think you are to smart to get caught by a simple typo, or not being able
to find the difference between a "translated" table, its origional and to
correlate it to the explanation given in between them.

You caught me fully off-guard by making your "sorting is ASCII order"
remark -- something the origional list showed to be untrue and I therefore
have no idea why you did say that.

If you need any other info to be able to help me find a solution to the
sorting problem I have I'm more than willing to oblige.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional mesage:
VanguardLH schreef in berichtnieuws
...
R.Wieser wrote:

VanguardLH,

In text strings, there is no such thing as a number, even less so a
negative number.

You and I know (want) that, MS is of a fully other idea. Hence the
NoStrCmpLogical registry setting (to disable MS'es idea of sorting on
values embeded in filenames).

If you want to include some signed numbers (interpreted by parsing
text strings) then ALL numerical substrings must be signed.

You misunderstood: I do not want to sort on a numeric value embedded
in filenames, I just want the sorting process to stop ignoring
certain characters in filenames.

You said:

with the third column showing an interleaved "33" and "-32"

yet none of your examples has a "33" substring. I also did not get what
you meant by "translated" since it looked like you were trying to show
what sorting order would get used for the prior examples of filenames
(where none had "33" in them). Yet the translated list has duplicate
filenames which are not allowed within a folder. No "33" examples and
not sure what the 2nd list was supposed to convey.

Was your 1st list supposed to exemplify the resultant sort order of the
filenames shown by Windows Explorer? Or was the 2nd "translated" list
what you see for sort order? Which entries were supposed to contain the
"33" substring?

With NoStrCmpLogical, there is no such thing as a
number in a text string; i.e., sorting is ASCII order

You are the second person doing this: Ignoring the facts infront of you
(the
provided filename list) which shows nothing of the sort. DON'T DO THAT.
Please! It feels incredibly rude.

Who else (up to the time of this reply) has participated in THIS
discussion? I only see you and I in *this* discussion. Um, just *who*
was it that started TWO DISCONNECTED threads on the same topic? Oh
yeah, that was you.

If you start multiple disconnected discussions on the same subject,
don't expect others to aggregate them all together. With multiple
threads, expect a different set of respondents in each. If you want to
keep the discussions together then don't start separate threads. If you
demand that respondents rebuild your threads into one to gather up all
the disconnected posts then I can easily step aside and let you glean a
solution from those numerous respondents you have received so far.

In fact, I didn't even see your prior nearly-the-same thread. It got
flagged as Ignored by my kill filters and I use a default view that
hides Ignored-flagged threads. I hide them rather than delete them. I
reviewed my kill filters to find one of them has incorrect regex looking
for political posts: it was supposed to look for "pres(ident(ial))
(elect)" but I had a wildcard in there that resulted in matching on
"present" which was in your Subject. However, even after I fix my rule,
I still won't go collating all posts made within the same day or within
the same week made by the same poster. I pick a thread and respond to
that one.

I'm not the one that chopped the discussion into separate pieces with
multiple threads.