[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
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
- [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, 2013/08/26
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Summary Re: Placeholder clarifications - nomenclature, syntax and rules,
Karsten Hilbert <=
- 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