[Top][All Lists]
[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