By way of a simplified explanation, my single record db is a compendium of selectable contract clauses which span four layouts (and growing).
Paragraphs, headers and sub-headers are all selected by radio buttons for inclusion/exclusion in a one-time report.
The report itself comprises merge fields which, I think, give better formatting.
Unfortunately, as this is a single record file, my print out options are limited to a max of 10 pages, which means that my report has to span 2 layouts at least.
The report is always output to PDF for distribution, so the two page layout option coupled with the usual problem of parts splitting across page-breaks, messily, makes the task of creating the PDF a pain.

My first-attempt, single record solution, is cludgey: if anybody can think of an alternate approach to this, which works better, I’m all ears!

Tim

Sample pdf available...[/b]

Tim,

Have you though of having each clause in a separate record rather than in a separate field?

Just a thought, it would get you around your page length limit nicely.

Have you thought of having each clause in a separate record rather than in a separate field?

Hiya Court,
Yes I've had an initial try - not the whole thing, but enough to see what was, wasn't, happening.
Two problems struck me (with the report printed as a list and records shown complete [as is], with sliding etc, on)
1) Using sub-headers (as a calc) means that page breaks can orphan the sub-header
2) This is a flexible document. Invariably new clauses need to be inserted and this mode of fixed records makes adding records into the body more painful than viewing and editing the report in merge field mode.

John S. suggested the same though I now suspect that his suggestion of a find solution, rather than my 'if' solution, might be the way forward.

My initial (revised) attempt was to create two records which included multiple text fields and radio buttons. Now I can see a slightly different way of doing it...
I'll have another go and report back asap.

Tim

Sounds good, let us know how it goes.

OK. This is looking very promising...
The first problem I’ve found is this:
Each record consists of ‘Header’, ‘Sub-Header’ and ‘para’ fields, so the report layout consists of the same, though viewed as a list.
As some records are sub-para’s or alternatives they don’t have their own header or sub-header.
But, the print version prints a blank space where the header & sub-header should be, even though the fields themselves are blank and sliding is enabled.
I could (...) incorporate headers and sub-headers into the para field, but then I’d lose my Contents index which is based on these headers & sub-headers.
What do you reckon?
Perhaps a new calculation field which incorporates header, sub-header and para?

Tim

Hi,

Your terminology is a bit hard to follow, but it seems like you're on the right track. We've often put the heading "in" what you're calling the paragraph. You could also have paragraphs that are their own headings.

This whole thing offers some nice possibilities. For instance, you can have a series of checkboxes in a client's record that refer to the contract sections you'd like to include- perform a find or GTRR for those sections and you have the client's contract.

FWIW, we also use a sort field to make rearranging these paragraphs easier.

Finally, an "active" field will let you maintain a version history of each clause. Simply date stamp all the records and only use "active" clauses in your printed contracts.

Best,

John

Hiya John,
Apologies for my complete lack of terminology. FMP is a devil of a thing to explain when you’re not used to talking about it.

I can see where you’ve leapt to in terms of future possibilities, and the ‘active’ date stamp is a great idea...

I already have the checkboxes and the sort going...

However I’m still struggling with what I imagine is a really ‘doh’ problem.

In my (report) print layout, I’ve created a calculation field which concatenates two of the fields within each record.
I’ve successfully set an alternative font size for each of the fields, but I’d like to add in a pile more formatting functions – but I can’t get to the point where two instructions can form a workable string.

If ( Check 1="Yes" ; TextSize (header; 15) & ¶ & TextSize (Para text;12) ; "" )

What I want to add is Upper(header), TextStyleAdd, etc.
Can I?
And if so, how?

Tim

Moonunit wrote:FMP is a devil of a thing to explain when you’re not used to talking about it.

Indeed. It is hard to write about such abstract things, even for folks who talk about it all the time. =)

Moonunit wrote:If ( Check 1="Yes" ; TextSize (header; 15) & ¶ & TextSize (Para text;12) ; "" )

What I want to add is Upper(header), TextStyleAdd, etc.
Can I?
And if so, how?

You'll want to put the style function inside the size function like this...

TextSize ( TextStyleAdd ( YourTextField ; Uppercase + Bold ) ; 12 )

Check FM7's online help for the acceptable syntax of the TextStyleAdd function ("Uppercase" instead of "Upper", for instance) and for a good example of using "Let" to manage all this.

This is also a great place to use custom functions as they can centralize your styles for generic things like "headers" letting you modify and maintain the definition in just one place (in the custom function) while using the style consistently throughout your file.

HTH,

John

Morning John,
You have no idea how far your help has taken me. Thank you.

In answer to your last post, you were right, the FMP online help is good – I had checked it before posting, but never looked up TextStyleAdd. Whether I could have nested a string without your assistance is doubtful.

I looked at the ‘Let’ function, but the FMP example is slightly at odds with what appears when you choose it from the specify calculation pane, so whilst I’m sure it would have simplified my calculation, I succeeded in working around without it.

Unfortunately I don’t have the Developers edition – so no Custom Functions...(I know I would love that option too!)

Needless to say, I could still use even more of your help...

Some of my records include text which I would like to be able to vary...
Example Record/Field/Text
“my clientname require notice of your agreement within # days”
Clientname & # being the variables I’d like to replace

In other words if I could include within the existing text field something like <<variable 1>> and <<variable 2>>, that would be great.

Best regards

Tim

(Ignore me if bored!)

Thanks for your kind words.

Moonunit wrote:Some of my records include text which I would like to be able to vary...
Example Record/Field/Text
“my clientname require notice of your agreement within # days”
Clientname & # being the variables I’d like to replace

In other words if I could include within the existing text field something like <<variable 1>> and <<variable 2>>, that would be great.

That is precisely where we were heading on our original post when I mentioned this custom function...

http://www.seedcode.com/support/viewtopic.php?t=229

(Note that while many custom functions can be translated into regular FM calcs, this one is recursive, and can not. You'd need to have the Developer Edition to use it.)

You can do the same thing with a nested substitutes, of course, turning your paragraph into a calc field that substitutes against certain variables.