John Kitchin <[email protected]> writes:
> Rasmus writes:
>
>> Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Another option is to mimic custom links, if that's what you're thinking
>>> of, which means to store every user-defined keyword in a variable and
>>> build a regexp out of it. I dislike it even more because the document is
>>> not portable anymore, as it requires you to share your custom keywords.
>>
>> So, the (opinionated) useful defaults in biblatex are:
>> cite(s), parencite(s), footcite(s), texcite(s), fullcite,
>> footfullcite, nocite
>>
>> Citation types for extracting parts:
>> citeauthor, citetitle, citeyear, citedate, citeurl,
>
> If citenum was also in that list, then I agree. It is not that likely
> there is little need for custom style.
Ok, sorry I didn't check the natbib manual carefully. AFAIK you get
numbers with biblatex without any author-year options so:
\cite{k}, \parencite{k} → [Num]
\textcite{k} → A [Num]
Is this similar to \numcite? From natbib is seems to be intended for
people who use author-year, but still wants numbers. Is that correct?
—Rasmus
--
Vote for proprietary math!
