-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Natbib support #5
Comments
Thanks! I'm glad you like the change! That bugged me too :-). We should rename this issue to I'd jump to Let's enumerate the things we would need to do to make either of these changes so we know what we're getting in for. @FlyingSamson, can you comment with any more implications you can think of esp. for
|
I'm so happy to know that this issue is being taken care of. I spent quite some time with custom-bib to make my own author-year compatible .bst file. However, it seems a bad idea since the afterward processing looks quite strict on the command and style usage. Anyway, the newer version is much nicer to work with. Thanks for the work. Regarding the TODOs:
This can save authors' time on working out their own ways, which could be problematic afterwards. |
@mattbrehmer What do you think? Would you want to try to roll |
I love that the template now supports and encourages the use of '\cref' over '\autoref'.
Maybe it would also be a nice addition to support/encourage the use of natbib to allow for '\citet' and '\citeauthor' commands. Especially since the template proposes not to use '\cite' as the subject in sentences. It would be way easier to do so if LaTeX figures out the authors itself (including using 'and' for two and et al. for more than two authors), also reducing the risk of misspelled names.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: