On 11 Jan 2008, at 6:39 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Friday, January 11, 2008, at 09:24AM, "Christiaan Hofman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 11 Jan 2008, at 5:13 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:40 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote: >>> >>>> It was displaying only the pubs for the author. That does not make >>>> sense when you are showing an editor. >>> >>> Oh, I thought it was displaying all pubs that a person was >>> associated >>> with as author/editor/other. Didn't it use -[BibItem >>> allPeople]? I'm >>> pretty sure we added that for display and testing membership. >>> >> >> No, it used -[BDSKPublicationArray publicationsForAuthor:], which >> used -pubAuthors. ON the othr hand changing the name changed every >> author in every field, with the comment that it did so because there >> was no way to get the field. > > I'm not sure why that comment was there, since it sounds like > expected behavior in retrospect :). Being able choose fields as > you say is probably better. I guess the support for arbitrary > person fields wasn't as finished as I thought. > >>>> I was thinking about making it more useful by adding a control >>>> (table >>>> or popup) to choose the fields to display. That could work as a >>>> filter on the displayed publications, and also on where a name is >>>> replaced. Similarly, I think it can be useful to display (and >>>> filter >>>> by?) all different forms of the name, so you can easily see if a >>>> name >>>> is spelled consistently or whether we have collapsed too many names >>>> (I'm thinking of Alexander and Alexeev Zamolodchikov). But I did >>>> not >>>> want to do anything like that before the release. >>> >>> Yeah, displaying all forms of the name would be useful. Grouping by >>> any person would be useful as well (I thought we could do that, but >>> apparently not). >> >> I was wondering if it should be any normalizedName (which is used for >> isEqual) or any originalName. > > What "it" would that be?
Whether we should list all existing normalized names or all existing original names. > >> What do you mean by 'any person'? You mean any person field? > > Yes, using a set of all of the persons in a document. It might not > be worth the hassle, though. > I was thinking of having a table with all person fields, allowing multiple selection, to determine the filter. Or are you talking about category groups? Christiaan >>> I wanted to release last night, but figured I should wait until >>> you'd >>> had time to check that file save. It's tested, but I'm paranoid >>> about >>> manipulating files. >>> >>> adam >>> >> >> I have not really test it. Looks like it would be mostly OK, keeping >> in mind the restrictions from the comments. But shouldn't the tmp >> file always be removed, a file in a tmp location is not really useful >> as a backup file. > > Since -[NSDocument keepBackupFile] always returns NO unless > overriden, it'll always be deleted. In this case, the backup file > is saved alongside the original so file.bib and file (1).bib are > present until the exchange/delete succeeds, which would make it > easy to find. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
