Re: reference formatting

[Aditya Mahajan <adityam@umich.edu>]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Hans van der Meer wrote:

>
> On Jun 22, 2006, at 23:13, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Hans van der Meer wrote:
>>
>>> With \definereferenceformat[pin][left=(,right=)] it is possible to
>>> typeset
>>> references with
>>> 	\pin[ref] and get "(ref)"
>>>
>>> I have two questions in this respect:
>>>
>>> 1. is it possible to change the general setup in the same way,
>>> 	e.g. let \in[ref] do the same as \pin[ref] here.
>>> 	The left and right are not in setupreferencing.
>>
>
> I finally came up with this, a bit of a kludge I admit:
> \let\originalin=\in
> \definereferenceformat[parenthesizedin][left=(,right=),command=
> \originalin]
> \let\in=\parenthesizedin

Be careful with this. There are two places in the source that use \in 
command. You will get parenthesis around them also.

If you do not use those commands (\inline and I do not remember the 
second one, I checked that yesterday), then even

\definereferenceformat[in][left=(,right=)] should work.



>>> 2. some strange interchange takes place when using \pin{A}{B}[ref].
>>> 	Instead of the expected "A (ref) B" one gets "A (refB);
>>> 	it therefore seems the right parenthesis from the setup comes too
>>> late in play.
>>
>> As I understand referencing, this is the expected behaviour. I think
>> that \in{..}{..}[...] was for things like
>>
>> As seen in \in{Figure}{a}[fig]...
>>
>> that is when you want to refer to a subfigure (or a subformula).
>> That is
>> why there is no space between the number and the content in the second
>> {..}
>>
>
> I has not understood it that way, but thought it was meant to enclose
> the whole reference. I see the point now.
>
> Hans van der Meer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
>
>
>

-- 
Aditya Mahajan, EECS Systems, University of Michigan
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~adityam || Ph: 7342624008