On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 8:57 AM András Simonyi wrote:
> It seems to me that "*" as a key is sophisticated enough that if we have to
> make a decision
> about the default fontification then it is better to err on the side
> of supposing that a user using it knows what they are doing,
+1
Bruce
Dear All,
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 14:27, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> András Simonyi writes:
> I do not agree.
> If someone sets up natbib for latex export and basic for other formats,
> "*" will not be correctly exported in those other formats (because basic
> does not support @* syntax) -
András Simonyi writes:
> I think that the problem with simply adding one or more new activation
> processors with different fontification for the "*" key is that Org
> has no way of knowing (at least for sure) which export processor will
> be used for a exporting a certain Org buffer, since it
Dear All,
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 at 15:09, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Then, oc-natbib, oc-biblatex, and oc-csl should be modified to provide
> an alternative activation function that will not highlight @* as
> non-existing key.
>
> Probably, we can even use an alternative "special" key face, not
>
