Oliver Buerschaper wrote:
That is the chicken and egg problem I was talking about. When the publication list sort order is 'by citation order', and 'only show cited publications' (as per ams), then \cite looks at the list to find the number, and the list checks the \cite order for what to include. All is good if the ref is actually there, but intercepting errors is problematic.
I see ... just curious: do you happen to know how the LaTeX folks handle wrong citation keys?
I assume they output ??, but I am not sure. The problem is not impossible, it is just that my implementation of crossreferencing is giving me problems. I should warn you: since there is only a problem in the module if there is a problem in the input also (so to say), rewriting large sections of the module to fix the lack of error reporting is not very high on my todo list.
I did it this way, because I prefer better-matching page breaks over visual similarity. At least some of the other \cite options generate ?? instead.
I'm afraid I don't follow you ... what does it have to do with page breaks?
If you have several unknown references in a paragraph, then something like (Xxxxx, 0000) will give you a closer approximation of the running length of the final paragraph than just ??. The difference can easily make a paragraph one line longer or shorter, thus influencing page breaks and float placement. Best, Taco