[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, sy
From: |
Busser, Jim |
Subject: |
[Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:44:55 +0000 |
On 2013-08-16, at 2:14 PM, Karsten Hilbert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Correct.
>
>> as a result of which, a placeholder which supports three fields would have
>> the form
>>
>> $<field_1 :: field_2 :: field_3>$
>>
>> wherein
>>
>> field_1 must, in all cases, provide a valid (defined-in-GNUmed)
>> placeholder name
>>
>> field_2 provides for one (or a series of) argument(s) which, in some –
>> but not all cases – need to be supplied
>>
>> field_3 provides for an ability, or a requirement, to specify a maximum
>> number (length) of target characters
>
> Number, not length. Length would be *string* length.
>
>> and
>>
>> field_1 cannot be followed solely by a single pair of ::
>>
>> In other words, while field_1 can, in some cases, be complete as
>>
>> $<field_1>$
>
> Not anymore.
>
>> it cannot be
>>
>> $<field_1::field_2>$
>
> Correct.
… still working on this …
Am I correct to believe that *some* placeholders even in client ≥ 1.4 will only
support (and therefore require) 2 fields, and therefore in those particular
cases
$<field_1::field_2>$
can, and would, be valid? Or effective with ≥ 1.4, must a second pair of colons
:: always in every case be specified, thus
$<field_1::field_2::>$
-- Jim
- [Gnumed-devel] Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules, Busser, Jim, 2013/08/16
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules, Karsten Hilbert, 2013/08/16
- [Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules,
Busser, Jim <=
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules, Busser, Jim, 2013/08/26
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules, Busser, Jim, 2013/08/26