Sorting

[Colin Law]

2010/1/16 Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu>:
> Daniel Richard <drichard58 at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I deleting the number like you suggested, but it didn't change
>> anything.  Since the numbers go 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 110, 111,
>> 112, 105, 106, 107, ...., I even created a new entry and typed in 105
>> as the number.  Instead of placing it after 104 in the list, it put it
>> right after the existing 105.
>
> That would be correct behavior..  If you have two items with the same
> number they will get sorted together, but the date you enter the
> transaction will then take precedence.  So the #105 you enter on January
> 10 will appear after the #105 entered in December of last year.

I think the OP means that with the new 105 added and with it sorted by
num he now sees (in this order)
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 110, 111, 112, 105, 105, 106, 107, ....
which in one sense is correct insertion of the new 105, but this would
be equally 'correct'
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 112, 105, 106, 107, ....
In fact neither of them is correct of course.
Very strange.

Colin