This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 28, 2023. It is now read-only.
Simple doi references #137
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The idea is that all these cites can then automatically be resolved (DOI -> BibTeX) and inserted back into the document.
`\cite` is not intended to be used in this way; it may merely be a short numerical identifyer (possibly in superscript). For refering to a work or its authors in grammatical form, like: "John Doe [Doe87] claimed...", the `\textcite` command is intended. Will can embed a change to this command into the resolver mechanism of the DOIs.
To avoid redundant-imports warning (which strangely happen only on GHC-7.10).
leftaroundabout
force-pushed
the
feature/simple-doi-references
branch
from
250005e to
f54ee7c
Compare
|
Yes, this looks good to me. I'll merge. Thanks! |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We discussed this already here: #102
I've meant to think about a better way to do this, maybe in another module or package, but I can't seem to get around to actually doing it. Are there objections if I just merge this as it stands, in the
Packages/Biblatexmodule?