I think `fullcite' is OK, although it will be a bit verbose: ┌──── │ [cite/fullcite:...] └────
Personally, I don’t mind using `full', and so having a duplicate between a style and a variant. But, to be honest, anything is fine with me, as long as it is readily available and documented. Thank you! Dominik “Bruce D’Arcus” <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> “Bruce D’Arcus” <bdar...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:27 PM Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> >> > wrote: >> >> >> I can add it, but “full” is already the name of a variant, so >> >> [cite/full: …] and [cite/style/full: …] would mean different things. >> >> Is this a problem, or do you think of a better style name? >> > >> > FWIW, Nicolas, biblatex “fullcite” is equivalent to natbib/bibtex >> > “bibentry”. >> > >> > That might be a reasonable alternative style name? >> > >> >> Also, are there possible variants for this style? >> > >> > AFAIK, no. >> >> Hmm, OK. What about: >> >> (“fullcite” nil “fullcite” nil nil) >> >> ? > > Seems fine by me, so long as you use the same name for natbib if and > when you add bibentry support? > > Bruce
