Paul Nelson <ultr...@gmail.com> writes:
> I hope you're not too disappointed to hear that I only anticipate
> three further tex-fold.el patches.
Sad news, but hey, AUCTeX has also other files ;-)
> Citation macros \cite{...} are currently folded as [c]. This patch
> gives more descriptive folding when possible, using author names and
> publication years, like [Ne21] or [ABC99]. These are extracted from
> any bib files referenced in the document or specified by a user
> option.
>
> QUESTION: the new code uses reftex and bibtex. Are we allowed to just
> require those in tex-fold.el? I wasn't sure, since AUCTeX in general
> seems careful about (require) statements.
I didn't read the code carefuly, but Why can't we conditionalize this,
i.e., use RefTeX/BibTeX code if the libraries are loaded and plugged
into AUCTeX (RefTeX mainly), otherwise stick with what we have? This is
actually AUCTeX mostly does.
> doc/auctex.texi | 11 ++++++
> tex-fold.el | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/auctex.texi b/doc/auctex.texi
> index 0356b96d..43d672d1 100644
> --- a/doc/auctex.texi
> +++ b/doc/auctex.texi
> @@ -2955,6 +2955,17 @@ specifications for @samp{begin} and @samp{end} from
> @code{TeX-fold-macro-spec-list}.
> @end defopt
>
> +@defopt TeX-fold-bib-file
> +The default folding behavior for @samp{\cite{...@}} macros that point to a
^@{
> +BibTeX entry is to replace them with a string of the form [XYZ99], formed
> +using the authors' last names and the publication year. If we cannot find
> +the required BibTeX entries in any bib files included in the current
> +document, then, as a backup, we search the files specified in
> +@code{TeX-fold-bib-file}. This may be useful when using
> +@samp{\thebibliography{...@}} rather than BibTeX, or when working in
^@{
Best, Arash
_______________________________________________
bug-auctex mailing list
bug-auctex@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
