Aaron Ecay <aarone...@gmail.com> writes: >> In this design, the potential explosion in subtypes has been pretty well >> kept in check. Does that make the design of BibLaTeX a good model for >> Org mode? > > I don’t know, but I suspect not. Latex allows users to create powerful > macros, but has relatively few built-in niceties (some are provided by > auctex and friends, but that’s separate). Org’s macro facilities, > though also powerful, are not well-integrated into its considerable > interactive features. > > By way of illustration, Biblatex (AFAICT) doesn’t provide a possessive > citation command, which was mentioned by someone in this thread (or its > predecessor) as a desideratum. ^^^^^^^^^^^
According to my dictionary, that might be a bit strong. It was used an example of why you need userwritten types. > I’d expect a savvy latex user to put in > their preamble: > > \newcommand{\citeposs}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}’s (\citeyear{#1})} > > That doesn’t really work in org. (It could be put together with an org > macro, but would lose the kind of click-to-view functionality that > org-ref already provides and which would be ported to the new syntax as > well.) And this is why I say that you need to be able to define you own subtypes. Adding the naïve version of citepos should be something like: (cite-mapcar (λ (cite) (concat (citeauthor cite) "'s" (citeyear cite))) cites) —Rasmus -- Got mashed potatoes. Ain't got no T-Bone. No T-Bone