Re: [Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 09:44:55PM +0000, Jim Busser wrote:

> >> 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,

No.

> and therefore in those particular cases
> 
>       $<field_1::field_2>$
> 
> can, and would, be valid?

No.

> Or effective with ≥ 1.4, must a second pair of colons ::  always in every 
> case be specified, thus
> 
>       $<field_1::field_2::>$

Yes.

Even if that's maybe not true, technically, I don't support
saying otherwise as that's what it will be, eventually.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346