Family Historian User Group

I realise this may be a dumb question, but I can't find a way of fixing the column widths in the auto text template screen. Currently, the columns extend beyond the view, and even on full screen, I can't see the right-hand columns to drag them in? You also seem to have to drag every column - one at a time - to get the entire template in view?

There must be a simple solution to this, but I just can't see it.
Can anyone help?
Thanks

After you've entered your census data and before doing any required manual edits to the Autotext, click the 'Fit' button.

D'oh! I new it would be easy - should've gone to Specsavers!
Thanks for the quick response - thought there must be an easy fix.

This doesn't work for non-census sources (but they don't generally have as many columns). There is a bit of a trick with rich text tables - I think if you drag a column while holding down the shift key (it may be the Ctrl key I can't test it currently!) then the other columns move with it.

Shift key, I think, Nick.

NickWalker wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2022 13:11

This doesn't work for non-census sources (but they don't generally have as many columns).

Yeah, about that... I just discovered FMP has lots of India/Burma records for Birth/Marriage/Burial, and they have up to 15 columns. I've been cooking up some auto-text templates for them. See attached image.

Slightly off topic, but...
A nice to have would be the ability to define named values in addition to the built-in {RTF-WIDTH1} ones in AS. They don't really cut the mustard when doing the multi-column under a main title column as above as the ratios are not usable. Either via the options as for the built-ins, or a means of defining then in the auto-text template so they are local to it and don't clog up the options.

ChrisRead wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2022 20:51

A nice to have would be the ability to define named values in addition to the built-in {RTF-WIDTH1} ones in AS. They don't really cut the mustard when doing the multi-column under a main title column as above as the ratios are not usable. Either via the options as for the built-ins, or a means of defining then in the auto-text template so they are local to it and don't clog up the options.

Do you realise you could just type the numbers directly into the template if you want to?

i.e.: {RTF-WIDTH1}|{RTF-WIDTH4}|{RTF-WIDTH7}

could be written as: 600| 1350 | 2100

That's all that these keywords do - AS just replaces the keywords with the numbers so they go into the table column width values that Family Historian uses.

Yes, I do as I have to use numbers to get columns to line up when there is a heading above multiple columns. I try to use the built-ins where possible though. The only reason for being able to have a local literal is to make it easier to adjust widths that are used in multiple rows by redefining it once. It's not a big thing in the grand scheme of AS things, just something I could have used on a number of occasions when I find I didn't make a column quite wide enough for some new name or other. It would have removed the need to go through the row definitions correcting them individually where it can get a bit trial and error on many column row of similar widths.

Ah OK. It was the "means of defining then in the auto-text template so they are local to it and don't clog up the options." that I was replying to because there is already a way of doing that. But I know what you mean now.

Cheers

Nick

I have no issue with the built-ins, but as they are common across all templates, it's just a bit tricky to always use them in the more complex tabular ones I've done, unless you never plan to redefine them in the options due to unwanted side-effects on others. I dislike literal values (old programmer speaking) in things, but TBH it's not really too arduous to do the manual tweaking, just grates on me a little and there are more important things to worry about.

Keep up the good work.

ChrisRead wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2022 14:29

I dislike literal values (old programmer speaking) in things

I have exactly the same dislike

ChrisRead wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2022 14:29

I dislike literal values (old programmer speaking) in things

Hmm. On the other hand, as an old ICL1900 programmer, I did find it 98% absurd to be advised to remove the literal 3 from my software and replace it by N-3 defined as:
01 N-3 Pic 9 value 3.
(Good grief - COBOL - after all these years! Wonder if it's right?)

(As a further aside, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to realise what's wrong with:
01 N-3 Pic 9 value 9.
It proved remarkably easy to make that mistake...)

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2022 19:08

ChrisRead wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2022 14:29

I dislike literal values (old programmer speaking) in things

Hmm. On the other hand, as an old ICL1900 programmer, I did find it 98% absurd to be advised to remove the literal 3 from my software and replace it by N-3 defined as:
01 N-3 Pic 9 value 3.
(Good grief - COBOL - after all these years! Wonder if it's right?)

If it is a literal shouldn't it be:

01 N-3 Pic X value '3'.

Bill

So, I apologise for starting the massive drift of this tread from column widths to old COBOL reminiscences . Oh, and I did some COBOL back in Uni in '80, so I'm not left out .

BillH wrote: ↑

14 Oct 2022 19:22

...
If it is a literal shouldn't it be:
01 N-3 Pic X value '3'.
...

Apologies from an old COBOL programmer but...
Caveat - I'm no longer totally sure about the normal usage of the terms "literal" and "constant" - I started talking about literals simply because that was the topic.

IIRC there were alphabetic literals (Pic A - which no-one used), numeric literals (Pic 9) and alphanumeric literals (Pic X). Alphabetic and alphanumeric literals were delimited by quotes of some form - numeric literals had no quotes around them. If you were going to carry out arithmetic with it, you'd use a numeric literal - hence
01 N-3 Pic 9 value 3.

If it was just being printed, then you'd have
01 X-3 Pic X value "3".

I think I used X-3 as the item-name when I wrote COBOL, but since it's just a name, it doesn't really matter except for clarity.

The potential problem with
01 N-3 Pic 9 value 3.
was when you got trigger happy and typed
01 N-3 Pic 9 value 9.

In the main COBOL instructions you'd see N-3 and assume it had the value 3, whereas your trigger happy self had given N-3 the value of 9, not 3! That's when I started to use some literal values.

OK... it was the word literal that threw me. I was a COBOL programmer for about 10 years back in the 70's. We called Pic X an alphanumeric literal and Pic 9 a number. We never used the term literal with Pic 9 fields (or the word constant).

Bill

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2022 13:15

Shift key, I think, Nick.

That is very useful know about! Shift key it is.