On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Michael McCracken <
michael.mccrac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 23 Feb 2009, at 10:13 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Maxwell, Adam R
> >> <adam.maxw...@pnl.gov> wrote:
> >>> On 02/23/09 12:47, "Michael McCracken"
> >>> <michael.mccrac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I had an idea based on the -users thread about macros and
> >>>> autocomplete.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not add the macros list to autocomplete too?
> >>>
> >>> That's been around for a while now...
> >>>
> >>>
> http://bibdesk.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bibdesk?view=rev&revision=3648
> >>>
> >>>> The idea is that if I have a macro "PLDI", I could either start
> >>>> typing
> >>>> "Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Progr" and then get what I
> >>>> want,
> >>>> or I could type "PLD" and get what I want.
> >>>
> >>> Currently I think it only works if you're in the raw editing mode
> >>> but I'm
> >>> too lazy to check. Do you thing it should complete to a macro in the
> >>> regular mode as well?
> >>
> >> Yeah, autocomplete in raw mode autocompletes the macro, and
> >> autocomplete in regular mode will autocomplete the expansion of the
> >> macro if it's been used in the document already.
> >>
> >> You nailed it - what I was suggesting was that autocomplete in regular
> >> mode should autocomplete the macro name for macros and insert the
> >> macro if chosen, and not offer the expanded version as a choice.
> >>
> >> It means I could insert macros without being in macro editing mode, by
> >> choosing them in the autocomplete. It might be confusing though, if
> >> the macro is 'foo' and I type all of 'foo', but don't choose the
> >> expansion in the autocomplete, I'd just get "foo" and not whatever it
> >> expands to... is there a better way to handle that case?
> >>
> >> -mike
> >
> > I think that would be a real mess from the point of view of
> > implementation. You're either editing a raw bibtex string or not. When
> > you make a complex string while editing in normal mode you'll almost
> > certainly get the expanded string.
>
> I was wondering how hard it'd be. I haven't looked at the code in
> ages, obviously...
> Would it work to have the act of selecting the macro from the
> autocomplete switch you into raw mode?
> It might be a little jarring but at least it'd preserve the existing
> functionality.
>
> -mike
>
I think that would be very fragile, and doubt it would work. The expanded
string in the edited field would be committed before it has a chance to
start editing raw bibtex.
Christiaan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-develop mailing list
Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
