On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 4:03 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
... > > My understanding, though, is that org "cite" would default to your > > last example I quote above (in natibib, citep); that there's no need > > for a dedicated "cite/paren" command, either reserved or not. > > Not necessarily. "cite" means default value, whatever that is. It could, > for example, mean: "cite/text" for every citation, if that is what you > use the most. In that case, "cite/paren" is necessary, to override it > locally. It could also be, e.g., "cite/footnote", then both "cite/text" > and "cite/paren" could be of some use. That was suggested by Richard > Lawrence in this thread, if my memory serves me right. > > Does that make sense? I think so. I'll defer to Richard on this, since he was making this point. ... > > Given how common that is (In natbib, it and citep are the two core > > commands), is there any downside to reserving that? > > As I wrote, we can reserve "cite/text" already. > > Could we find something shorter for such a common need? Well, I didn't > find any syntax compelling enough—I don't like special casing. For > example, having both "citeX" and "cite/XXX", as suggested by Denis > Maier, is a bit convoluted, IMO. E.g., having both "citet" and > "cite/text" would just add confusion to the system, IMO. > > Besides, "cite/text" is not that difficult to type. Moreover, you would > probably use a tool to insert the citation anyway. > > This is not an irrevocable decision, of course. I merely suggested and > implemented one syntax, but I'm still open to suggestions. I support this decision, for all the reasons you mention; no problem at all. > > And then I guess the "suppress-author" variant would be something like > > "cite/year" or "cite/suppress-author"? > > The syntax still includes the "suppress-author" mechanism: > [cite:-@doe20]. Oh right; good. > It could be redundant with "cite/suppress-author", indeed. We can keep > it nonetheless. We can also decide to remove the "-@key" special syntax. > Or, we could also consider this idea to be an interesting one, and > extend it, with, e.g., [cite:!@doe20], which could be a shortcut for > [cite/text:@doe20]. > > Special cases… Everything's possible. You tell me. I vote to keep the "-". On your last suggestion (the "!" citet shortcut), how valuable it would be would really depend on the UX; how commonly, per your point above, one would be using a tool to insert this citation command. Bruce