bug-auctex
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex


From: Ralf Angeli
Subject: Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:41:36 +0200

* Andreas Breitbach (2009-07-01) writes:

> Am Samstag, den 27.06.2009, 16:33 +0200 schrieb Ralf Angeli:
>> 
>> Does it help if you apply the following patch to reftex-cite.el,
>> recompile and reinstall?  Alternatively you can evaluate a patched
>> version of `reftex-do-citation' in a running Emacs session by copying
>> its definition into the *scratch* buffer and typing `C-M-x' with point
>> in it.
> With the applied patch it works:
> \footcite[43]{InternationalSecurity.1Summer.2000}.

Hm, strange.  Does it still work if you only wrap the call to `format'
into `save-match-data'?  The patch would then look like this:

--- reftex-cite.el.~1.53.~      2009-03-01 15:42:06.000000000 +0100
+++ reftex-cite.el      2009-07-04 14:39:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -702,8 +702,9 @@
                        (equal arg '(4))))
           (let ((start 0) (nth 0) value)
             (while (setq start (string-match "\\[\\]" string start))
-              (setq value (read-string (format "Optional argument %d: "
-                                               (setq nth (1+ nth)))))
+              (setq value (read-string (save-match-data
+                                        (format "Optional argument %d: "
+                                                (setq nth (1+ nth))))))
               (setq string (replace-match (concat "[" value "]") t t string))
               (setq start (1+ start)))))
         ;; Should we cleanup empty optional arguments?

-- 
Ralf




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]