On Jun 22, 2006, at 23:13, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Hans van der Meer wrote:
With \definereferenceformat[pin][left=(,right=)] it is possible to typeset references with \pin[ref] and get "(ref)"
I have two questions in this respect:
1. is it possible to change the general setup in the same way, e.g. let \in[ref] do the same as \pin[ref] here. The left and right are not in setupreferencing.
I finally came up with this, a bit of a kludge I admit: \let\originalin=\in \definereferenceformat[parenthesizedin][left=(,right=),command= \originalin] \let\in=\parenthesizedin
Don't know about this.
2. some strange interchange takes place when using \pin{A}{B}[ref]. Instead of the expected "A (ref) B" one gets "A (refB); it therefore seems the right parenthesis from the setup comes too late in play.
As I understand referencing, this is the expected behaviour. I think that \in{..}{..}[...] was for things like
As seen in \in{Figure}{a}[fig]...
that is when you want to refer to a subfigure (or a subformula). That is why there is no space between the number and the content in the second {..}
I has not understood it that way, but thought it was meant to enclose the whole reference. I see the point now. Hans van der Meer