At Thu, 19 Mar 2020 11:46:44 -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> What I thought was the more "Racket'y way" would be to store it as
> abstract data that then could be rendered to the appropriate style
> (that's what BibTeX and everything else does).

Well, perhaps the Rackety way is to store it as abstract *code*. That
abstraction is what the `make-bib`, etc., functions are meant to be.

But you're absolutely right that the language of `make-bib` should be
more extensible. Currently, `location` is clearest the extension point,
but there are still just a bunch of predefined locations, instead of a
protocol for adding new ones. And `location` by itself is probably not
enough extensibility.

And you're right that the way that language renders to references and a
bibliography needs to be configurable and extensible. You can pick
among a few styles in `define-cite`, but that mostly just controls the
way references render, not the bibliography.

You could build something new and better --- or maybe just different
and more applicable to your case. But if you're interested in improving
and generalizing `scribble/scriblib`, I'd be happy to work with you on

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to