Minor wishlist for [+] concatenation

[Michael Dietz 0]

I had a custom birth tag which consisted basically of "x was born <> <> . Alternative or variant data on PP birth are listed below" and which I used when I had varying data for the birth. This would be the primary tag and the variant data would be in another custom tag stating it was in variance to the primary.

 

It worked well until I started preparing my book. In the book I would have a chart or pedigree and also individual narratives. The tag worked well for the narratives but looked dumb in the chart where it stated there was additional data below.

 

So I tried this. The regular birth tag and then a custom tag which would concatenate onto the primary birth tag with the sentence structure "[+]. Alternative or variant data on [PP] birth are listed below.". In theory I could then have the primary birth tag in the chart and in the narrative and place the concatenation in the narrative to achieve the desired result.

 

However I discovered since there was no date (other than the sort date), no location, and no memo data in the concatenation it never appeared. I resolved the problem by changing the sentence structure to "[+][M] Alternative or variant data on [PP] birth are listed below." and then placing a period in the memo. That works fine except if I forget the period and it does look a bit strange in the tag entry list.

 

Is there any other workaround or should I enter a wishlist to have the ability to concatenate a constant valued sentence onto another tag?

 

Thank you

Mike

[Michael Hannah 0]

Mike,

 

Have you tried a sentence of:

[+]. <[M0]>Alternative or variant data on [PP] birth are listed below.

(that is M-zero not M-Oh). This conditional of the zero memo part often resolves a variety of sentence issues for me.

[Michael Dietz 0]

Mike,

 

Have you tried a sentence of:

[+]. <[M0]>Alternative or variant data on [PP] birth are listed below.

(that is M-zero not M-Oh). This conditional of the zero memo part often resolves a variety of sentence issues for me.

 

Mike (also):

Thank you. While this does not 'fix' my problem of having to kludge the system to get the sentence to appear in the narrative report it is a much more acceptable kludge than mine of having the period as the memo.

 

Thank you (and please send some rain to us. Half of our trees here in the Manzanos and Sandias are dying).

Mike (again)

 

ps. for those of you who do not know it, Mike and I live about 60 miles from each other.

[John Cardinal 0]

I discovered since there was no date (other than the sort date), no location, and no memo data in the concatenation it never appeared.

 

This is a surprise to me. I am not aware of any rule where a tag is suppressed because it meets the conditions you described above. If a tag is suppressed under those conditions, then I think it's a bug. Furthermore, it's not clear why changing the sentence to include (or any other text / variables) makes a difference. As far as I know, the only sentence content that influences tag inclusion / exclusion are the single-exclusion and double-exclusion marks. A reference to the zeroTH memo part is a legitimate technique to avoid inserting the memo, but its presence shouldn't affect tag inclusion / exclusion.

 

I am going to try to reproduce these results and if I can, I'll report it as a bug.

[Michael Dietz 0]

John:

Here is more detail on the situation.

In the birth tag I had the primary role as given by TMG. I also had a role, named Alternative, which had the sentence structure of:

[PF]< [PAR]> was born <[D]> <[L]><. [M]>. Variant or alternative data on [PP] birth is listed below.

 

Then for John Doe where I had a couple of possible birth dates I would select the Alternative role for the primary birth tag and then later (using sort dates) would list the other birth date(s) using a custom tag named Birth-Altrn with the sentence structure of:

It is also reported [PF] was born <[D]> <[L]><. [M]>

 

This worked well as long as I was using the individual narrative report. Then I looked at the Journal report where I listed only primary BMDB tags. Since John Doe had the Alternative birth role the journal stated there were other birth data listed below. This was incorrect since I was not listing the associated Birth-Altrn tags.

 

I then removed the Alternative role from the birth tag and implemented a custom tax named Birth-Plus with the sentence structure of:

[+]. Variant or alternative data on [PP] birth is listed below<[M]>

 

I would then enter John Doe using the primary role in the primary birth tag. I would also place the Birth-Plus tax immediately following the birth tag expecting it to concatenate the sentence onto the birth tag. It did not.

 

I resolved the problem with the Birth-Plus tax being:

[+][M1]. Variant or alternative data on [PP] birth is listed below<[M2]>

and placing the period in the memo box.

 

Mike's (the other one) idea removed the need to put the period in the memo box. I have no idea why the situation existed since I also thought any tag which was not excluded in some manner would be printed/displayed. I guess there must be some type of formatting of some variable in the sentence structure in order to generate the actual tag. I have many constant valued tags throughout the database for documentation but they are not concatenations. So maybe the condition only exists with the [+] concatenation.

 

Thanks for looking into this.

Mike

[Michael Dietz 0]

Whoops I did not preview the post and now see an error.

 

The revised Birth-Plus tag sentences should be

 

[+][M1] Variant or alternative data on [PP] birth is listed below<[M2]>

 

without the period after the [M1] variable.

 

Sorry about that.

Mike

[John Cardinal 0]

Mike,

 

What group did you assign to the Birth-Plus tag type, i.e., Birth Group, Other Group?

 

Were you testing carefully to determine if the changes described by you and Mike H above were truly the causal factors? In other words, are you certain that adding a period in the memo and then inserting a reference to the memo is what made the tag appear, or was it some other change to the report definition? Similarly, did you test to see if removing the "" that Mike H. suggested--and that change alone--will trigger the problem where the tag doesn't appear?

[Michael Dietz 0]

Mike,

 

What group did you assign to the Birth-Plus tag type, i.e., Birth Group, Other Group?

 

Were you testing carefully to determine if the changes described by you and Mike H above were truly the causal factors? In other words, are you certain that adding a period in the memo and then inserting a reference to the memo is what made the tag appear, or was it some other change to the report definition? Similarly, did you test to see if removing the "<[M0]>" that Mike H. suggested--and that change alone--will trigger the problem where the tag doesn't appear?

John,

This is now embarrassing. I have been trying to replicate the problem for the last hour. Unfortunately I bumped into it two days ago and have changed the data and the report formats since then. Now it seems to be working correctly. I will continue to work at it to see if I can find the configuration that caused the problem. The Birth-Plus group was other event and not birth.

Mike