From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/5534 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eckhart =?iso-8859-1?Q?Guth=F6hrlein?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: m-bib: passing extra information to \cite Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:58:24 +0200 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010907103821.00a81fd0@public.uni-hamburg.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010906214816.00a7bd90@public.uni-hamburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035396122 2502 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 18:02:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: Taco Hoekwater , ConTeXt mailing list In-Reply-To: <3B988205.D0802432@elvenkind.com> Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:5534 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:5534 At 10:15 07.09.2001 +0200, Taco Hoekwater wrote: >\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'). As far as I am concerned, it can be removed, since I'm planning to abandon the use of latex entirely and do not have large bibtex databases yet. A more general solution could be to use a different command for cross-referencing inside the bib file, let's call it \crosscite for example. Then you could say something like \def\crosscite#1{\cite[#1]} % for context or \def\crosscite#1{\cite{#1}} % for latex in the setup area of your document, or perhaps better in the bib module and in a cont-bib.sty file provided for use with latex. Existing databases could be converted with a single search and replace, and the context \cite command would be free of restrictions due to backwards compatibility issues. I think this simple conversion would be an acceptable price for enhanced functionality. Perhaps the definition of \crosscite should provide equivalent use of \crosscite{..} and \crosscite[..], so context users can use the square brackets consistently. Eckhart