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. 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. Hans van der Meer
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.
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 {..} This is what core-ref.tex says %D \placefigure %D [here][three calls] %D {Three alternatives reference calls.} %D {\startcombination[1*3] %D {\framed{\type{ \in }}} {a} %D {\framed{\type{ \at }}} {b} %D {\framed{\type{\goto}}} {c} %D \stopcombination} %D %D \startbuffer %D \in figure[fig:three calls] %D \in{figure}[fig:three calls] %D \in figure a[fig:three calls] %D \in{figure}{a}[fig:three calls] %D figure~\in[fig:three calls] %D \stopbuffer %D %D \typebuffer %D %D This turns up as: %D %D \startlines %D \getbuffer %D \stoplines I was not aware of that the braces around figure can be omitted! Aditya
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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Hans van der Meer wrote:
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
Be careful with this. There are two places in the source that use \in command. You will get parenthesis around them also. If you do not use those commands (\inline and I do not remember the second one, I checked that yesterday), then even \definereferenceformat[in][left=(,right=)] should work.
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
_______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
-- Aditya Mahajan, EECS Systems, University of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~adityam || Ph: 7342624008
participants (2)
-
Aditya Mahajan -
Hans van der Meer