Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Rasmus]

Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> 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