Re: [AUCTeX] reftex-do-citation format

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2007-02-17) writes:

> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Can somebody please verify that spaces in the argument of \cite are
>> valid in any case?  Once this is settled we can think about changing
>> the default or making it configurable.
>
> latex.ltx says:
[...]
> Now the address@hidden@address@hidden@empty} seems to
> be good for pretty much nothing except skipping leading blanks
[...]
> Anyway, I think this code would correspond to the following change
> note in ltbibl.dtx:
>
> % \changes{LaTeX2.09}{1991/11/06}
> %     {added code to remove a leading blank}

I assume this code is used for every entry of a comma-separated list
given to \cite?  So it would be save to add whitespace between such
entries?

>> We are currently in course of setting up a repository with the
>> RefTeX sources.  In addition the build system will be changed.
>
> Uh, it will?  I really must learn to listen better to the discussions
> on the developer list.

If we stick with the original make-based build procedure the Makefile
file will have to be adapted to the new directory structure in the
repository.  But we could of course skip that and implement the
Lisp-based build routine right away.

>> So it might take some time till you see the next release.
>
> But we had the "start" problem with quotes in tex-mik IIRC, and the
> recent contribution of Carsten (for which the papers are in the queue,
> and Carsten has historic files in AUCTeX, anyway, so we can pretty
> much put his contribution in without delay without affecting the
> overall unpleasantness of the current situation).

I was talking about a release of RefTeX, not AUCTeX. [=

>> Until that happens you will have to deal with this manually,
>> overwrite the function definition with a changed one, or change the
>> original Lisp file and recompile it.
>
> Yup.  Anyway, I would consider it more important for RefTeX to
> cooperate with docTeX-mode.  It is completely unusable at the moment
> for that since it will not consider structural information in
> comments.

Hm, I planned to do a first release once the build procedure is fixed
and the bugs we already have reports for are fixed.  Like this we
would soon have a version which can be distributed from gnu.org.  This
way we can make the transition of maintainership more visible and
relieve Carsten from the necessity to provide a tarball from his site.

Mail-Followup-To: address@hidden (I hope this works.)

-- 
Ralf