Dear all, I am seeking advice once again. I have a Source Types where I wish to change the Repository as recorded in the Attachments tab in the Source Definition screen. There are many hundreds of them and I want to change them in one go, not one at a time. I cannot see a way of doing this this in TMG or TMG Utility. Have I missed something? Is there a way please? Thank you. Nigel Brown

Lee, This did not work for me--even paid a guy to help--still can't print s0 have to use my laptop and another printer. Pauline Ballentine ---- Lee Hoffman/KY via <tmg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > At 7/18/2015 10:33, Tracy Reinhardt wrote: > >I am trying to print a report, but am getting > >OLE error code )x80040154: class not registered > > > >How do I fix? > > The Wholly Genes forum discussed this problem. See Jim Byram > response at > <http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index.php?/topic/14260-tmg-v8-tips/?p=57483> > > Lee > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I found the forum notes, but at first the solution did not work for me. But that was my mistake, because I did not realize that here was an actual button to click on, for the installation of the PDF printer. Once I used the button, it was fixed!!!! Thank you Tracy reinhardt Sent from my iPad > On Jul 18, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Lee Hoffman/KY <azchief@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > At 7/18/2015 10:33, Tracy Reinhardt wrote: >> I am trying to print a report, but am getting >> OLE error code )x80040154: class not registered >> >> How do I fix? > > The Wholly Genes forum discussed this problem. See Jim Byram response at <http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index.php?/topic/14260-tmg-v8-tips/?p=57483> > > Lee >

At 7/18/2015 10:33, Tracy Reinhardt wrote: >I am trying to print a report, but am getting >OLE error code )x80040154: class not registered > >How do I fix? The Wholly Genes forum discussed this problem. See Jim Byram response at <http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index.php?/topic/14260-tmg-v8-tips/?p=57483> Lee

I am trying to print a report, but am getting OLE error code )x80040154: class not registered How do I fix? tracy reinhardt

There has been quite a discusion on this list recently about empty split field parts, and the observation that "sometimes" it is necessary for them to contain a place holder character. Like so many such issues about TMG I have felt the need to capture such "folklore" somewhere that others may find it later. That was why I wrote my on-line book about TMG, and why I try to update it as I discover information about using TMG. I should have searched myself in my book when this topic came up. I had explicitly documented the bizarre behavior of empty split Citation Detail parts in my Source Elements chapter in the discusson about elements that are entered on the Citation Screen. I have now expanded that description to be even more of a warning when using split Citation Details or split Citation Memos. http://www.mjh-nm.net/SRCELEMS.HTML#CitationElements I also already had a more general and thorough discussion about Empty Split Memo Parts in my Tag Sentences chapter: http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGSENTS.HTML#EmptyMemoVariables That text also has been expanded to hopefully be even more clear on this issue. It also includes the TMGU "Find and Replace" patterns to globally insert place holder characters where needed. Hope this gives people ideas, Michael

Lee Hoffman observed: > ... I think it was in an upgrade to v5 or v6 that it was decided > to require the placeholder space... Since the HELP text was introduced sometime in Version 7, the problems may have been noticed in Version 6, but I would guess the change occurred when converting to Version 7. However I can find no mention of this in the Change Logs. But whenever this occurred, and whether the place holder "should" be optional or "should" be required, the program allows the user to enter it either way. Whichever way one looks at it, based on the observed behavior of the final version a user should always include the placeholder in empty parts to ensure that the output is as expected. Michael

At 7/14/2015 13:05, Terry Reigel wrote: >As I recall the discussion with Bob and the beta team when this was >addressed (I'm thinking in TMG 6 or 7) the design was that it was to >work only with a place holder. I was surprised to see that at least >sometimes it works without. > >I believe that the conversion that was applied to existing Projects at >the time interpreted entries under the old rules (which recognized three >bars as two segment dividers) and re-formatted with two bars for each >segment separated by a space if empty. So if cases exist with multiple >bars without spaces I think they were added by users after that conversion. My recollection is much the same although I do not recall that it was ever "official" that three bars indicated two segments (and four indicated three segments) . Users were seeing that and many had started doing it that way. But it was inconsistent as some users found. Also I think it was in an upgrade to v5 or v6 that it was decided to require the placeholder space. Split Memos were introduced in v4, but the aberrant output didn't really show up until later. Since v4 was written in Foxpro and v5 was a complete re-write into Visual FoxPro, I suspect that v5 had the first reports of inconsistency. Also note that GTMOTMG does not include any mention of space place-holders. Further, the discussion about Split Memos on TMG-l was occurring in 2005. The first reference to a space place holder was in a message from Darrell Martin <http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/tmg/2005-04/1113499880> where he mentions the space was important. Possibly earlier discussion took place there, but I have searched enough. <G> In any case, the upgrade that included the conversion to the space placeholder came with the advice to users to examine their Split Memo usage to ensure the correct usage. I think the conversion only converted the three-bar separators to two bars-space-two bars. Any four bar (or multiple, but even number) separators just had space holders inserted. So users that had four bar separators planning on more than one segments within the bars had to make sure manually the conversion was applied correctly. Lee .

On 7/14/2015 12:04 PM, Michael J. Hannah via wrote: > Terry Reigel wrote: > > ... on testing I find that the space is optional. > > Including or excluding the space has no effect on output. > > Well, Terry, I do believe that this was the "goal". However, as several > people have shown by testing this goal was not achieved. <sigh> Michael, As I recall the discussion with Bob and the beta team when this was addressed (I'm thinking in TMG 6 or 7) the design was that it was to work only with a place holder. I was surprised to see that at least sometimes it works without. I believe that the conversion that was applied to existing Projects at the time interpreted entries under the old rules (which recognized three bars as two segment dividers) and re-formatted with two bars for each segment separated by a space if empty. So if cases exist with multiple bars without spaces I think they were added by users after that conversion. Terry Reigel

On 7/14/2015 12:41 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 7/14/2015 12:01, Terry Reigel wrote: >> Where do you find it in Help? I looked and couldn't find anything on it. > > It is under the Index topic 'Split Memo'. Also it is under 'Split > Citation Detail'. In both cases, it is in the next paragraph down. > > There is another place that talks about splitting fields (I can't find > it now) that refers to the above saying that it operates the same way > as the Split Memo. Thanks, Lee, I was using Search and never found the right key words. So the official story is as I remembered it - you are supposed to put a place holder between the bars of unused segments. Terry

At 7/14/2015 12:01, Terry Reigel wrote: >Where do you find it in Help? I looked and couldn't find anything on it. It is under the Index topic 'Split Memo'. Also it is under 'Split Citation Detail'. In both cases, it is in the next paragraph down. There is another place that talks about splitting fields (I can't find it now) that refers to the above saying that it operates the same way as the Split Memo. Lee

On 7/14/2015 11:40 AM, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 7/14/2015 08:26, Terry Reige wrote: >> Under the current rules a pair of bars is always required to create a >> segment. I thought that a space is required between pairs to designate >> an empty segment, but on testing I find that the space is optional. >> Including or excluding the space has no effect on output. But I can't >> find documentation in Help that addresses this. > > As the rule states, each segment requires an entry even if it is only > a space to designate that the segment is empty. An empty segment > without the space often works fine, but there are times when it > doesn't as Tom has experienced and Michael has verified. Without the > space, TMG goes back to the old inconsistent treatment of the segment > separators which is why the Help was changed to add the required space > rule. Lee, Where do you find it in Help? I looked and couldn't find anything on it. Terry

At 7/14/2015 08:26, Terry Reige wrote: >Under the current rules a pair of bars is always required to create a >segment. I thought that a space is required between pairs to designate >an empty segment, but on testing I find that the space is optional. >Including or excluding the space has no effect on output. But I can't >find documentation in Help that addresses this. As the rule states, each segment requires an entry even if it is only a space to designate that the segment is empty. An empty segment without the space often works fine, but there are times when it doesn't as Tom has experienced and Michael has verified. Without the space, TMG goes back to the old inconsistent treatment of the segment separators which is why the Help was changed to add the required space rule. Lee

Michael J. Hannah wrote: > See the two HELP topics and sections noted below, one for citations > which I mentioned earlier, the other more general for memo fields: > > Topic: Citation (Existing) > Section: Empty Split Citation Detail and Citation Memo Field Parts > > Topic: Memo > Section: Empty Split Memo Field Parts By the way, I also find it in the Version 7.04 HELP: Topic: Citation Section: Empty Split Citation Detail and Citation Memo Field Parts Topic: Memo Section: Empty Split Memo Field Parts So it has been in HELP at least since Version 7.04. I did check Version 6 and do not find this recommendation in its HELP. Michael

Terry Reigel wrote: > ... on testing I find that the space is optional. > Including or excluding the space has no effect on output. Well, Terry, I do believe that this was the "goal". However, as several people have shown by testing this goal was not achieved. <sigh> The final version of TMG, which unfortunately cannot be changed, demonstrates the following: TMG will always work as expected if there is a 'place holder' space. TMG will often, but *not* always, work as expected without that. > But I can't find documentation in Help that addresses this. See the two HELP topics and sections noted below, one for citations which I mentioned earlier, the other more general for memo fields: Topic: Citation (Existing) Section: Empty Split Citation Detail and Citation Memo Field Parts Topic: Memo Section: Empty Split Memo Field Parts So if users want to be *sure* empty split parts work as expected, they should always use a 'place holder' as recommended by HELP. And thanks to John Cardinal's Utility, I have described how it is easy to insert these place holders in the data in existing projects. Michael

I have a simple query set up in a List Persons report that looks at all the descendents (no spouses) of a particular ancestor of mine. This report has always been fine for years till about a week ago. Now when I run the report, it tells me it found 4403 people but when it sets up the actual report it tells me it is calculating columns for 4402 people Anyone have any ideas why there is a difference of one person and how I can determine who that one person is? Txs Kathi

On 7/13/2015 10:19 PM, Richard Damon via wrote: > My understanding is that while a double bar || is considered to be a > separator, ||| is considered as 2 separators and |||| as 3 separators, > as ||| has two sets of || next to each other (sharing the one in the > middle), and |||| has 3 pairs (the middle two both shared). I thought it > was even documented that way at one point (as a short cut for lots of > skipped fields). Richard, You are right that this was once the case. However, many versions ago, after vigorous debate between Bob and various beta testers (don't ask how I know that <g>), the situation was revised to improve clarity. The update that implemented the new rules included a routine to convert existing Projects to comply with the new standards. Under the current rules a pair of bars is always required to create a segment. I thought that a space is required between pairs to designate an empty segment, but on testing I find that the space is optional. Including or excluding the space has no effect on output. But I can't find documentation in Help that addresses this. Terry Reigel

At 7/13/2015 22:19, Richard Damon wrote: >My understanding is that while a double bar || is considered to be a >separator, ||| is considered as 2 separators and |||| as 3 separators, >as ||| has two sets of || next to each other (sharing the one in the >middle), and |||| has 3 pairs (the middle two both shared). I thought it >was even documented that way at one point (as a short cut for lots of >skipped fields). If I recall, when it was first reported on TMG-L that empty segments sometimes caused weird output, some users reported seeing results as you describe. But some users reported different results. This is why it was recommended that a place holder space be used between two segment separator pairs. It gave the most consistent results. Lee

At 7/13/2015 22:05, John Cardinal wrote: >Instead, we need to determine why Tom sees the unusual results >where a space in an otherwise empty CD4 appears to affect the use of CD5, >etc. As far as I know, there is no such rule in TMG. I can't explain why Tom >sees the results he sees, but I don't have time to experiment right now. I >know that in the past TMG had trouble parsing successive split memo parts >unless there was a space for each "skipped" part, but I thought those bugs >were fixed a long time ago. That rule that Michael quoted has been in TMG since at least v7. I think it was added to TMG Help in one of the upgrades to v5. I don't have them installed to check, but I have an old computer with v4 and it is not in that version. I do not recall the discussion at the time, but think it was decided to keep things as they were (adding the Help text) rather than risk breaking something in a minor upgrade and thus wait for a major release to fix it. But I don't think it was ever fixed -- at least it doesn't appear to be, <g> Lee

On 7/13/15 9:44 PM, Michael J. Hannah via wrote: > Yes, Tom, thanks to you forwarding your templates I now see the same > behavior. As best I can make out without exhaustive testing it seems > that TMG is treating the four vertical bars as if they were *six* > vertical bars??? So, for example, if CD3 is empty without a space, TMG > does not output CD3, but also! does not output CD4, and then puts the > text for CD4 in CD5's output, and the text for CD5 in CD6's output!!! > > This is really bizarre, and I will need to do more testing before I > include it in my "Outstanding Bugs" on-line document. There may be > other conditions that cause even more bizarre behavior when a 'place > holder' space is not used in an empty split part. > > To be fair, TMG HELP has said for some time in the "Empty Split Citation > Detail and Citation Memo Field Parts" section of the "Citation > (Existing)" topic: > > "If you use multiple split memo parts, you should always use a 'place > holder' space in any empty memo parts." > > So bizarre behavior where the spaces are missing I guess should not be > totally unexpected. > > Hope this helps, > > Michael > My understanding is that while a double bar || is considered to be a separator, ||| is considered as 2 separators and |||| as 3 separators, as ||| has two sets of || next to each other (sharing the one in the middle), and |||| has 3 pairs (the middle two both shared). I thought it was even documented that way at one point (as a short cut for lots of skipped fields). -- Richard Damon