Family Historian User Group

I was building a sentence using the Section function: {date} {place} {=FactValue(%FACT%)} {individual} {=Section(“tekst || andere tekst”,1,"||")} The FactValue function works ok, but the Section function doesn't seem to be recognized. BTW. The intend is {date} {place} {=Section (FactValue(%FACT%),1,...

Impressive, the new KB; great job!

Yes Mike, it's also my experience that the wish list is what the name says it is, a "wish" list.

I'll try to contact Calico support about the idea and see if that's going to ring a bell.

Thanks anyhow for your investigating alternative solutions.

Cheers, Joop

Thanks Lorna and Mike for your idea's but... I do mean all reports and more specific the narrative ones. When a person changed profession 6 times, moved 8 times and changed religion, not to speak of buying and selling property, being in the military etc. etc. it is - in my opinion - terribly confusi...

In general I am quite happy with the way one can input data and get the various outputs. Yet, I still severely miss one thing and that is a possibility to group fact types. I was a long time TMG user and there I kind of faked it by using artificial sort dates (like the real date + 1000, 1100 etc.). ...

Thanks Mike, the filter setting did it.

It says: Newline characters in search&/or replace text are reserved exclusively for long text fields, such as note, fact address, text from source. LUA patters is turned off (I am doing a text to text replace; only thing is that it is a multi-line text). The square brackets are not part of the searc...

I am trying to use the Search and Replace plugin to replace text in the note field of marriage facts. The text includes newlines like:
[[
text 1:
text 2:
]]

change to:
[[
newtext:
]]

But the plugin gives an error memo and refuses to do it.

What am I missing?

@Mike

Yes, and that's what I use. But, I see now my question was confusing. In addition to what you (and I ) use to get the "meta field" input, I also use the fact that there is an input to the "meta field" to decide which text to use on a different position in the sentence. Hence the test.

Yes, the statement is wrong. I should have used:

{=TextIf((GetLabelledText(%FACT.NOTE2%,"Impost: ")=""),"text1", "text2")}

Sorry for my dumb question.

I am in the process of changing over to GetLabeledText for my "meta fields" in the sentence definition of the various fact types. Overall this is going very well but I've run into a small problem. When I test whether a "meta field" has no input, the test doesn't work. I tried: {=TextIf(Exists(GetLab...

Super, I like quick and don't mind dirty . It does the job and has improved my understanding and interest of Lua.

Thanks again.

Hi Jane, Thanks for your help. It works beautifully. One question though, to have it fill in the right auto-create note right away, I need to enter [[ and ]] as text to enter as well. Suppose the auto-text is: [[ Variable 1: Variable 2: ]] Could this be entered in one go? Would be great. Cheers, Joop

I have been programming in PL/1, APL, Fortran, Algol and lately in Python, but know nothing of Lua. Yes I checked the Plugin Help. I am now looking into the Birth fact, after that facts like Death, Burial, Baptism, and Marriage need to be handled. Every different fact will need to have a different a...

You presume right and indeed I already dealt with the non-empty ones and am now in search of means to enter the auto-create note in the facts that (as I understand now) currently have no fact notes. A Plugin to do this would be great, but on the other hand, would it not be a great extension of the s...

I am trying to use search and replace to replace empty fact notes with an [[ auto created note ]]. Seems I am doing something wrong or overseeing the obvious, because when I search on non-empty note fields, everything works fine, but when I leave the search field empty (to search for empty note fiel...

I did vote just now!

Mike, it's a very nice solution and I understand the how and why of it. I even think that most of what you did is of a generic nature and can be used in all situations where a conditional list with comma's and "and" needs to be build.

Thanks for your help!

Hi Mike,

I gave up , that's the reason. But... I am very much interested in your solution, because I agree that using note paragraphs is my (usually) last resort solution. Please share.

I can't get to the right witness data from the fact level. So I did it the other way around and started at the fact level. My sentence is now: {individual} was <{=GetParagraph(%FACT.NOTE2%,1)}> baptized {date} {place} <{=TextIf(Exists(%FACT._SHAR[1]%),"in the presence of")}> {role=getuige1} <({=Text...

I have changed to sentence to make it more compliant with what FH supports (I hope :)) {individual} was <{=GetParagraph(%FACT.NOTE2%,1)}> baptized {date} {place} <{=TextIf(Exists(%FACT._SHAR[1]%),"in the presence of")}> {role=getuige1} <({%FACT._SHAR[1].NOTE2%})><, {role=getuige2}> <({%FACT._SHAR[2]...

I have a sentence with 3 different witness roles (r1, r2 and r3). Each one of them can be single or plural. The sentence is: {individual} was <{=GetParagraph(%FACT.NOTE2%,1)}> babtized {date} {place}, in the presence of <{role=r1} as R1> <, {role=r2} as R2> <and {role=R3} as R3> The "in the presence...

Thanks Mike, Too bad that such a simple question can only be solved by such an elaborate expression. Maybe if I could check on the role name of the witness... What is the result of %FACT._SHAR%? If it's the role name, than I might be able to get my sentence working without knowing the number of witn...

I have a question but can't find the answer. I need the number of witnesses to build a correct sentence. If possible per role, but that's not of utmost importance. Is it possible?

Mike, works like a charm.

Thanks and enjoy the weekend!