gnumed-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] placeholders in latex


From: Jim Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] placeholders in latex
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:57:21 -0700

On 2011-05-31, at 3:25 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:54:33PM +0200, Slappinjohn wrote:
> 
>> Logfile appended,
>> 
>> used placeholder $<soap_a>$
> 
> Fixed for 0.9.next, thanks.
> 
> Karsten

Resurrecting an old thread… a few questions about

        ~/git/gnumed/gnumed/gnumed/client/wxpython/gmMacro.py

which has

#=====================================================================
known_placeholders = [
        'lastname',
        'firstname',
        'title',
        'date_of_birth',
        'progress_notes',
        'soap',
        […]
]


# those must satisfy the pattern "$<name::args::optional length>$" when used
known_variant_placeholders = [
        u'soap',
        u'progress_notes',                      # "args" holds: 
categories//template
                                                                #       
categories: string with 'soap '; ' ' == None == admin
                                                                #       
template:       u'something %s something'               (do not include // in 
template !)
        u'emr_journal',                         # "args" format:   
<categories>//<template>//<line length>//<time range>//<target format>

<snip>

**************************************************

1) Is the difference between known_placeholders and known_variant_placeholders 
that the former all adhere to

        "$<name::args::optional length>$"

whereas the variants are variant on the arguments? If so, can we change "those 
must satisfy" to "the above must satisfy" ?

2) is the purpose of the 'u' to allow to support arguments, and where I see 
(among known_placeholders) the following:

        u'client_version'
        u'current_provider'
        u'allergy_state' 

have the arguments simply not yet been defined?


3) I have had a hard time finding much about 

        strftime date format

when the number 99999 is used, is that a default for the fullness of what is 
possible down to fractional seconds?

-- Jim





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]