Re: m-bib: passing extra information to \cite

[Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com>]

Eckhart Guthöhrlein wrote:

... [snip] ..
> and then, for example,
> 
> \citeplus[authoryears][SomeBook][S.~100]
> 
> This is of course not very elegant, so is there a better way? If not, I

Not at the moment, but I will add something in a future version. One
problem
with \cite that I am interested in hearing people's opinion about: the
currently is a 'latex compatibility' option available as well. 

\cite{..} is accepted as meaning the same as \cite[..]. It is in there
because existing databases use this syntax when refering to other items
in the database. But: it is very latexy and not in sync with the context
rule that typeset arguments use {} and setup arguments use []. 

So, question: to remove or not to remove? How many people share bibtex 
databases between latex en context? (removal makes it easier to implement
the 'extra info').

> Apropos m-bib, there are those unresolved problems:
> \setupbibtex[sort=author] has no effect, and \cite[Xyz97] without the first
> (optional) argument gobbles the following space (just to remind you, I can
> work around it).

Noted. this wil be fixed somewhere before eurotex. Hans? the first one is 
a conflict with the multi-lingual interface: author is defined already.
Could
you have a look and explain to me how to go about that?

> Ah, and another question (didn't try myself yet): If I want to use -- for
> page ranges, but I have pages={10-20} in my bib file, can this be done at
> the bibl-xxx.tex level? Or is it easier to change the cont-xx.bst file?
> Similar: what about a point after the title in the bib file, which I would
> like to remove because a point is added when typesetting the list of
> publications?

It's probably easier at the macro level. The bst files are weird, even for
bst files ;).  I will look into it and try to explain in the documentation 
how it should be done.

-- 
groeten,

Taco