Family Historian User Group

tatewise wrote:The answer is Yes, as stated in the Help I quoted:

Then it applies each filter sequentially to the Result Set.

which by definition includes the first rule whether Add or Exclude.

Yes, but isnt this what got me so muddled in the first place? Because unless one is extremely particular about the language one is using, it looked as if the subsequent rows acted only on the first Results set?

Mike,
I understand what you are saying, but that statement in the help file is ambiguous. It should specifically state that this also applies to the first statement, not merely imply it, and contradicts what is stated in the book. (GTMFFH). I personally took that statement to mean the following statements apply and not necessarily the first too.

iMHO, help files, especially aimed to teach the average user, should make explicit statement, and imply nothing. To assume is to make an ASS of U and ME!

First rule of teaching:- Tell them what you are about to explain, then explain, then explain what they should have learnt,

Sorry, but I cannot understand the confusion.
If the initial rule just sets the Result Set status, but otherwise ignored, then an initial Add rule would be ignored.
Now we all seem to agree that the initial Add rule is obeyed, so why treat an initial Exclude rule any different?

To me, it is simple common sense.
If the initial rule is an Add it only makes sense if applied to an empty Result Set.
If the initial rule is an Exclude it only makes sense if applied to a full Result Set.
As the meerkats say: "simples!"

The Help page, if you read it all, does say (my underlining):

When Family Historian runs a query it applies all the filters to decide which rows will be included in the Result Set.

so it seems very clear that the next two statements just define preconditions prior to applying the filters, because they use the word "initially".

I don't have the book GTMFFH6, but I agree GTMFFH5 is economic with the truth and omits the case where the initial rule is an Exclude.

tatewise wrote: Now we all seem to agree that the initial Add rule is obeyed, so why treat an initial Exclude rule any different?

We can see that an inital add rule would work, because you Can add to an empty recordset, whereas you cannot Exclude something from an empty recordset, because there is nothing there to exclude!

The implication that the exclude statement first fills the recordset, then excludes what follows in the statement, is what it says, an implication. It needs to be spelt out explicitly that this is what happens. This is perhaps why users find the subject so dificult.

Following your comments, the rule is quite clear, but I submit the help file and the book lack the clarity needed for a guide.

I am at a loss.
There is no implication it says it very explicitly :-
"If the first filter is an 'Exclude' one it initially puts all records in the Result Set."

If a consistent interpretation is applied to each Help sentence it seems most explicit :-
1st sentence: ALL the filter rules are applied.
2nd sentence: If first rule is Add then start with an empty Result Set.
3rd sentence: If first rule is Exclude then start with a full Result Set.
Don't see how it could be more explicit.

It says nothing about ignoring rules, nor that a rule only empties or fills the Result Set but is not applied to the Result Set.

Don't impose different concepts such as apply the first Add rule, but don't apply the first Exclude rule.