Is there something special about the Death Witness Role for Doctor.
I've started with the following code
{individual} died <of a {cause},> {date} <at {address}> {place} {age}.< {individual's} doctor was {role=doctor}. >
This generates a sentence error as follows
If I then change to {individual}, I get a similar error
However changing to {his/her} gives me a different error, "her" appears as expected, the Doctor Role is now in error, but the <> symbols are not showing
Finally removing that first code completely (as in) < doctor was {role=doctor}. >, this works correctly, giving me "doctor was Dr Mason"
I've also tried
adding a word before the problem template code
deleting all the later entries for minister etc (which had all worked fine)
Removing the first {individual} code
{individual/him/her} (same error as {him/her}
but none of these made any difference
So am I doing something wrong? I cannot see anything in the forum/KB.
* Death Witness Role - Doctor
Death Witness Role - Doctor
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families
Re: Death Witness Role - Doctor
My next test was to simplify the whole thing, and start with <{individual's}> on its own. That worked. I then added {role=doctor}. That worked. I then copied and pasted both working codes, removed the middle <> and I get an error.
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families
- Jane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8518
- Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Somerset, England
- Contact:
Re: Death Witness Role - Doctor
It seems to be a limitation of using another individual format code with in a single section.
works OK as a work around.
Code: Select all
{individual} died <of {cause}> {date} <{address},>{_place} {age}.
< The attending doctor was {role(single)=doctor}.>
Jane
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
Re: Death Witness Role - Doctor
It has to be more than that. I had already tried removing the first {individual}. as that was my suspicion
But, if you take the bare bones example in my second post, if I remove the first code, I still get an error.
But, if you take the bare bones example in my second post, if I remove the first code, I still get an error.
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28434
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Death Witness Role - Doctor
The restriction is that you cannot have two {codes} within one <angle bracket>.
The first (or maybe the last) {code} determines whether to include the <angle bracket> contents or not, and other {codes} are treated as plain text prefix or suffix.
So if one {code} is any of the {individual...} codes then they always return a value, so they unconditionally include the <angle bracket> contents and everything before or after that {code} is plain text prefix or suffix.
The first (or maybe the last) {code} determines whether to include the <angle bracket> contents or not, and other {codes} are treated as plain text prefix or suffix.
So if one {code} is any of the {individual...} codes then they always return a value, so they unconditionally include the <angle bracket> contents and everything before or after that {code} is plain text prefix or suffix.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Death Witness Role - Doctor
OK that makes sense now. Thanks
Colin McDonald - Researching McDonald, McGillivray, Tait, Rountree families