Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 5:29 PM Nicolas Goaziou
> wrote:
>> I pushed in "wip-cite-new" an attempt to parse styles as a pair (name .
>> variant). I also updated oc-natbib.el and oc-basic.el accordingly.
>
> Looks good to me, and seems a good balance.
Thanks.
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 5:29 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
...
> I pushed in "wip-cite-new" an attempt to parse styles as a pair (name .
> variant). I also updated oc-natbib.el and oc-basic.el accordingly.
Looks good to me, and seems a good balance.
You mention it was "an attempt"; WDYT of the
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> I guess the question is really about the logic in this function?
No, not really. It was a more general question about handling
style+variant between local specification and global one, independently
on the processor.
> First, I am thinking "bare" would be more
Just to say that, for my simple use case(s), the latest version in
wip-cite-new is working very well indeed! Thank you.
--
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.5-400-gc88b58
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:22 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
>
> > Minor suggestion Nicolas:
> >
> > Currently, oc-natbib ignores global affixes.
>
> It is slightly more subtle. It ignores global affixes when there is
> a single citation reference. With multiple
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> Minor suggestion Nicolas:
>
> Currently, oc-natbib ignores global affixes.
It is slightly more subtle. It ignores global affixes when there is
a single citation reference. With multiple keys, it ignores local
affixes and uses global ones instead.
> But it
Minor suggestion Nicolas:
Currently, oc-natbib ignores global affixes.
This makes some sense given natbib has no notion of global vs per-cite
affixes.
But it seems ideally the code would preprend the global prefix to the local
prefix of the first cite.
So [cite:global ;local @doe] should yield
On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 4:25 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
>
> > To bottom line it, seems the decision comes down to something like
> > these three choices:
> >
> > 1. no change; keep sub-styles as they are ATM
> > 2. change sub-styles to a simple string. So
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> To bottom line it, seems the decision comes down to something like
> these three choices:
>
> 1. no change; keep sub-styles as they are ATM
> 2. change sub-styles to a simple string. So [cite/text/caps+full:...],
> where sub-style is the string "caps+full";
On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 4:57 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:37 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> >> Also not sure if additional are needed for the other styles; a "caps"
> >> default?
> >
> > I can't figure this bit out though.
> >
> >
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:37 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's fine to drop them (sub-styles_.
> ...
>
>> Also not sure if additional are needed for the other styles; a "caps"
>> default?
>
> I can't figure this bit out though.
>
> '[cite:/Text@doe]' is
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:37 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Maybe it's fine to drop them (sub-styles_.
...
> Also not sure if additional are needed for the other styles; a "caps" default?
I can't figure this bit out though.
'[cite:/Text@doe]' is obvious and elegant enough, but how do you do
the
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:37 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:11 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> > Did I say I don't like sub-styles already? :)
>
> What about a middle-ground, which would be a flat list of sub-styles, like:
Thinking about it more, some of the intricacies are
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:20 PM Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
> > I'm getting out of my depth, as I no longer use LaTeX much, but WDYT
> > about using latexmk for export -> latex -> pdf, so that bibtex and
> > such is properly run?
>
> This is controlled by `org-latex-pdf-process'; modifying it is out
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:12 AM Nicolas Goaziou
> wrote:
>
>> You're missing the colon at the end of the keyword. Note that `org-lint'
>> warns you about it.
>
> Ugh; sorry about that.
>
> I'm getting out of my depth, as I no longer use LaTeX much, but WYDT
> about
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:12 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> You're missing the colon at the end of the keyword. Note that `org-lint'
> warns you about it.
Ugh; sorry about that.
I'm getting out of my depth, as I no longer use LaTeX much, but WYDT
about using latexmk for export -> latex -> pdf, so
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:05 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
>> Your document doesn't contain a "#+print_bibliography" keyword. It is
>> responsible for adding the "\\bibliography{...}" macro. I don't think it
>> is possible to produce a PDF without it.
>
> I paste my
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:05 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Your document doesn't contain a "#+print_bibliography" keyword. It is
> responsible for adding the "\\bibliography{...}" macro. I don't think it
> is possible to produce a PDF without it.
I paste my input/output below.
Shouldn't the
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:29 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
>
> > The question comes down to whether to support sub-styles or not, and
> > if yes, what the syntax should be.
> >
> > I think it makes more sense to include them because otherwise you end
> > up with
Your other message, Nicolas, came in as I finished this, but I'll post
this anyway.
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:11 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> > I added the following to the wiki page, which I think addresses this:
> >
> > Note that `text/alt` would not make sense, as the sub-style in this case
>
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> The question comes down to whether to support sub-styles or not, and
> if yes, what the syntax should be.
>
> I think it makes more sense to include them because otherwise you end
> up with an insanely long list of styles, which won't map well onto
> different
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> To come back to this
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021, 10:53 AM Nicolas Goaziou
> wrote:
>
> Also it introduces ambiguities in style inheritance.
>> For example, if I add
>>
>> #+cite_export: natbib plainnat text
>>
>> would
>>
>> [cite//alt/caps:...]
>>
>>
Hello,
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:08 PM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>> I did some basic testing, and it seems to work well in general ...
>
> That was just looking at the citation output, of course.
>
> Now I did the real test: would LaTeX -> PDF work.
>
> Answer: not ATM.
>
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:06 AM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> If I add plainnat as style to the org file, I still get the undefined
> citation error.
So two things:
1. the bib file isn't include in the latex output
2. Denis noticed bibtex doesn't seem to run; maybe the pdf output
option for latex
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 3:36 AM Denis Maier
wrote:
> Bruce has sent me his test files, and it turned out to be the bibstyle
> (humannat), which apparently isn't included in current tex distributions.
> Question: I can't see why this style should be used according to the
> minimal example Bruce
To come back to this
On Wed, May 5, 2021, 10:53 AM Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
Also it introduces ambiguities in style inheritance.
> For example, if I add
>
> #+cite_export: natbib plainnat text
>
> would
>
> [cite//alt/caps:...]
>
> mean
>
> [cite/text/alt/caps:...] (i.e.,
Am 05.05.2021 um 23:25 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:08 PM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
I did some basic testing, and it seems to work well in general ...
That was just looking at the citation output, of course.
Now I did the real test: would LaTeX -> PDF work.
Answer: not ATM.
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 5:25 PM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Now I did the real test: would LaTeX -> PDF work.
>
> Answer: not ATM.
Probably user error, as I've not compiled bibtex + latex documents in
a long time.
But it doesn't appear the bib file specified in the org file gets
passed to the latex
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:08 PM Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> I did some basic testing, and it seems to work well in general ...
That was just looking at the citation output, of course.
Now I did the real test: would LaTeX -> PDF work.
Answer: not ATM.
Here's my minimal document:
BTW, if anyone else wants to test this but wasn't sure how, I put
together this little gist with a minimal init and instructions.
https://gist.github.com/bdarcus/2645f99363fc47ddab2aae24c5d9e66c
Bruce
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:53 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> As a reminder, to test it, you (require 'oc-natbib) to register the
> processor, and add "#+cite_export: natbib" in your document (or set
> `org-cite-export-processor' to (natbib)).
I did some basic testing, and it seems to work well in
"Bruce D'Arcus" writes:
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:53 AM Nicolas Goaziou
> wrote:
>
>> Another thread! Yay!
>
> We should be close to the finish line!
We should boost our media coverage for such efforts :)
Joke aside, thank you both very much for keeping the ball rolling,
it's nice to see
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:53 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Another thread! Yay!
We should be close to the finish line!
> I just added a new `natbib' processor in "wip-cite-new" branch, in the
> file "oc-natbib.el"
Awesome!
> However, I'm not convinced by them [sub-styles].
>
> On the bright
Hello,
Another thread! Yay!
I just added a new `natbib' processor in "wip-cite-new" branch, in the
file "oc-natbib.el"
--8<---cut here---start->8---
This library registers the `natbib' citation processor, which provides
the "export" capability for citations.
34 matches
Mail list logo
