On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 10:58 AM Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Anyway, I'll try to provide something a little more useful out of the > > box, based on your comment and Bruce D'Arcus suggestion. > > But that's partly why I mentioned ivy-bibtex: solutions already exist > and there should be no need to re-invent the wheel? I kind of disagree. There's a middle ground between super minimal and fully-featured that I think is appropriate for oc-basic. Nicolas is doing things with even the basic insert function that are not possible with the existing tools currently, in part as a demonstration of the possibilities, and also just to provide a decent default experience. But as I said to him off-list, if he simply changes his completion table from being a list of keys, to a list of cons like I mentioned, and maybe even makes the table a variable, then third-party tools can do one of two things: 1. if the variable, simply plug-in their own completion table, and so get a richer UI (this is the case with bibtex-actions, which has the same data structure) 2. the code itself can be a demo that can be easily adapted; in my case, I can pretty much copy-and-paste it and just change the "all" let variables Practically speaking, the ivy-bibtex "insert citation" action, which uses the bibtex-completion-insert-citation function behind-the-scenes, can then be enhanced such that it is more fully-featured in the context of org than it is in other modes, and that it is now. So enhancing this a little bit will have both short-term and long-term pay-off, both for default citations in org, and for third-party tools. Bruce
