Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Richard Lawrence <richard.lawre...@berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> Sorry, I may not have emphasized this enough, but in the grammar, I wrote:
>>
>> - A KEY optionally begins with `-', and obligatorily contains `@' or
>> `&' followed by a string of characters which begins with a letter
>> or `_', and may contain alphanumeric characters and the following
>> *internal* punctuation characters:
>> :.#$%&-+?<>~/
AFAIK Bibtex keys don't understand '#%~', so I'd remove those. I would
leave out '$' as well, as it's also the math symbol (think of display
support).
The regexp used by bibtex.el is bibtex-entry-head and keys are matched by:
\\([][[:alnum:].:;?!`'/*@+|()<>&_^$-]+\\)
> What about "@_" and "@a" ? Are they valid keys?
What is wrong with @a? That seems like a perfectly legit key and one that
you would even use in real life, for a one-citation document, say.
@_ Would be supported by bibtex, but I don't see a reason for supporting
it here (what is "@_1"? Why would citations take precedence over
subscripts?)
--
Together we'll stand, divided we'll fall
