[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex
From: |
Andreas Breitbach |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:03:43 +0200 |
Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 21:05 +0200 schrieb Ralf Angeli:
> * Andreas Breitbach (2009-06-08) writes:
>
> > Am Freitag, den 05.06.2009, 18:16 +0200 schrieb Ralf Angeli:
> >>
> >> You can get a backtrace by executing
> >> M-x toggle-debug-on-error <RET>
> >> before trying to insert the citation.
> >>
> >> The problem might be due to something in the the .tex or .bib files. So
> >> unless you provide sample files for reproducing the error, it will be
> >> hard to find its cause.
> >>
> > Ok, I tried these settings, these are the results:
> >
> > Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range 21 37)
> > replace-match("[34]" t t #("\\footcite[]{masala_kenneth_2005}" 0 12
> > nil 12 31 (face font-lock-constant-face) 31 32 nil))
> > reftex-do-citation(nil nil nil)
> > reftex-citation()
> > call-interactively(reftex-citation)
>
> This doesn't really help. As mentioned before, a sample file might be
> useful.
>
> > The reftex-*-citation complains on clicking that it "Can't find
> > library /usr/share/emacs/22.2/lisp/textmodes/reftex-cite.el". There are
> > some files in the respective directory, but they seem to be compiled
> > bytecode, having an *.elc.
>
> Are you sure the installation of the CVS version went okay? Didn't you
> install it below /usr/local? Did you put `(require 'reftex)' into your
> init file as suggested by the installation instructions? What's the
> output of `C-h v reftex-version <RET>'?
Finally I had time to re-check on the installation status of the CVS.
Indeed there have been some errors during installation(resulting in the
non-application of the CVS version for Emacs), so I did give
it a second try. But now enabling Reftex (via M-x reftex-mode <RET>)
only gives an error, which I can't directly quote here(the text turns
to garbage as it seems to be interepreted as some Unicode-like
characters), so I attachted the saved buffer it came up in.
Hope that helps.
Backtrace
Description: Binary data
- [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/03
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/03
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/05
- [Bug-AUCTeX] Re: 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Matthew Lundin, 2009/06/05
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/05
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/08
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/11
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex,
Andreas Breitbach <=
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/21
- Message not available
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/23
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/23
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/25
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/25
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/26
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/26
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/26
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Ralf Angeli, 2009/06/26
- Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] 11.85; Biblatex vs. RefTex, Andreas Breitbach, 2009/06/26