Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[Rasmus]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Richard Lawrence <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Sorry, I may not have emphasized this enough, but in the grammar, I wrote:
>>
>>   - A KEY optionally begins with `-', and obligatorily contains `@' or
>>     `&' followed by a string of characters which begins with a letter
>>     or `_', and may contain alphanumeric characters and the following
>>     *internal* punctuation characters:
>>        :.#$%&-+?<>~/

AFAIK Bibtex keys don't understand '#%~', so I'd remove those.  I would
leave out '$' as well, as it's also the math symbol (think of display
support).

The regexp used by bibtex.el is bibtex-entry-head and keys are matched by:

          \\([][[:alnum:].:;?!`'/address@hidden|()<>&_^$-]+\\)

> What about "@_" and "@a" ? Are they valid keys?

What is wrong with @a?  That seems like a perfectly legit key and one that
you would even use in real life, for a one-citation document, say.

@_ Would be supported by bibtex, but I don't see a reason for supporting
it here (what is "@_1"?  Why would citations take precedence over
subscripts?)


-- 
Together we'll stand, divided we'll fall