[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: wip-cite status question and feedback

From: Bruce D'Arcus
Subject: Re: wip-cite status question and feedback
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 17:18:00 -0400

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 4:03 PM Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> 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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]