On 4 Jan 2009, at 12:06 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > >> On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: >> >>> FWIW, I'd suggest that Greg's patch or the original code should >>> probably be used for PubMed, since this sounds like pretty serious >>> breakage for PubMed. >>> >>> -- Adam >> >> But this is in the RIS parser, not the PubMed parser, which >> completely >> overrides this change. So why would this be affected? Or does PubMed >> not even provide PubMed format anymore? > > Look at where the code you removed was: > > http://bibdesk.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/bibdesk/trunk/bibdesk/BDSKRISParser.m?r1=12305&r2=13424 > > Unless I'm totally misreading this, it was in the > +itemsFromString:error: method, which the PubMed parser does not > override. So originally the year was extracted from PubMed dates > using the same regex as for RIS, by design as I've said. I really > don't think this is PubMed's fault... > > -- > adam
Ah, I was looking at another change. I thought this was about a recent change, this is a relatively old change. RIS is truly a mess, that's why the RIS parsers are a mess. It's almost impossible to touch it, because any fix is almost bound to add a new bug. That's why I really don't like to even try fixing it (and therefore tend to close bug reports asking me). Anyway, I applied the patch (thanks Gregory), after some changes. Because of course the patch as it was would've broken proper RIS. Christiaan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
