GNU bug report logs - #31132
AUCTeX, RefTeX and biblatex's multicite commands

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Arash Esbati <arash <at> gnu.org>
To: Gustavo Barros <gusbrs.2016 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 31132 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#31132: AUCTeX, RefTeX and biblatex's multicite commands
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:00:39 +0200

Hi Gustavo,

Gustavo Barros <gusbrs.2016 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> thank you very much for the patches. They are really appreciated.
> And sorry for the delay in reporting back. I didn't have the time
> these last couple of days to look at this with due care.

Sorry for my late response; it seems I didn't have time during the last
couple of years ;-)  Somehow this report went lost.

> I've performed some tests with the patches you sent on the full set of
> biblatex's citation commands, and can gladly report that both "C-c &"
> (reftex-view-crossref) and "C-c [" (reftex-citation) (when issued on
> the key of an existing citation command) work flawlessly on all of
> them.

I had a look again and I plan to install the following change in Emacs
master:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/lisp/textmodes/reftex-parse.el b/lisp/textmodes/reftex-parse.el
index 9694a1364d3..6e1c229561a 100644
--- a/lisp/textmodes/reftex-parse.el
+++ b/lisp/textmodes/reftex-parse.el
@@ -801,17 +801,17 @@ reftex-notice-new
   )

 (defsubst reftex-move-to-previous-arg (&optional bound)
-  "Assuming that we are in front of a macro argument,
-move backward to the closing parenthesis of the previous argument.
-This function understands the splitting of macros over several lines
-in TeX."
+  "Move backward to the closing parenthesis of the previous argument.
+This happens under the assumption that we are in front of a macro
+argument.  This function understands the splitting of macros over
+several lines in TeX."
   (cond
    ;; Just to be quick:
-   ((memq (preceding-char) '(?\] ?\})))
+   ((memq (preceding-char) '(?\] ?\) ?\})))
    ;; Do a search
    ((and reftex-allow-detached-macro-args
          (re-search-backward
-          "[]}][ \t]*[\n\r]?\\([ \t]*%[^\n\r]*[\n\r]\\)*[ \t]*\\=" bound t))
+          "[])}][ \t]*[\n\r]?\\([ \t]*%[^\n\r]*[\n\r]\\)*[ \t]*\\=" bound t))
     (goto-char (1+ (match-beginning 0)))
     t)
    (t nil)))
@@ -860,13 +860,19 @@ reftex-what-macro
             (while (and (reftex-move-to-previous-arg bound)
                         (condition-case nil
                             (let ((forward-sexp-function nil))
-                              (backward-sexp) t)
+                              (if (eq (preceding-char) ?\))
+                                  (let ((temp-table (make-syntax-table)))
+                                    (modify-syntax-entry ?\( "()" temp-table)
+                                    (modify-syntax-entry ?\) ")(" temp-table)
+                                    (with-syntax-table temp-table
+                                      (backward-sexp)))
+                                (backward-sexp))
+                              t)
                           (error nil)))
-              (if (eq (following-char) ?\[) (cl-incf cnt-opt))
+              (if (memq (following-char) '(?\( ?\[)) (cl-incf cnt-opt))
               (cl-incf cnt))
             (setq pos (point))
-            (when (and (or (= (following-char) ?\[)
-                           (= (following-char) ?\{))
+            (when (and (memq (following-char) '(?\[ ?\( ?\{))
                        (re-search-backward "\\\\[*a-zA-Z]+\\=" nil t))
               (setq cmd (reftex-match-string 0))
               (when (looking-at "\\\\begin{[^}]*}")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Do you have the chance to install this locally and test it again?  I
will push it afterwards.  Thanks.

> But, in performing the tests, I observed some other things associated
> with biblatex's citation commands (some related to this issue, some
> not) that I might as well report too, in the hope they will be
> useful. As a regular biblatex user, I consider them minor.
>
> 1 - The multicite variants of 'volcite' are neither fontified nor call
> RefTeX when inserted (with "C-c RET"). They are inserted "plain" but,
> once inserted, "C-c [" will work on them. They are the following:
> -volcites
> -Volcites
> -pvolcites
> -Pvolcites
> -fvolcites
> -Fvolcites
> -svolcites
> -Svolcites
> -tvolcites
> -Tvolcites
> -avolcites
> -Avolcites

Fontification should work now for limited number of args:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/auctex.git/tree/font-latex.el#n305

> 2 - A couple of 'volcite' variants are fontified, but don't call
> RefTeX when inserted:
> -pvolcite
> -ftvolcite

Fixed with commit 9ba0093b.

> 3 - One command is not fontified:
> -footfullcite

Is fixed.

> 4 - 'mcite'-like citation commands are neither fontified, nor call
> RefTeX when inserted:
> -mcite
> -Mcite
> -mparencite
> -Mparencite
> -mfootcite
> -mfootcitetext
> -mtextcite
> -Mtextcite

This is indeed nasty because of the notation (biblatex.pdf, page 120):

\mcite{key1,setA,*keyA1,*keyA2,*keyA3,key2,setB,*keyB1,*keyB2,*keyB3}

I have no idea what the best approach for this is.

Again, sorry the late response.

Best, Arash

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.