From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Citation syntax: Underscore MUST(?) be allowed in cite keys? Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87sidd2rph.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <874mq0399a.fsf@gmx.us> <54F75222.8030805@gmail.com> <87pp8o1t9f.fsf@gmx.us> <87pp8o6nt9.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87fv9i9z8s.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87bnk60zhc.fsf@berkeley.edu> <54FA9AA9.9070505@gmail.com> <87r3t05okc.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87ioeci6f6.fsf@gmx.us> <87r3szk6q9.fsf@gmx.us> <87oao3yluf.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87k2yqyx55.fsf@berkeley.edu> <871tkyxgjg.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <871tkxzo16.fsf@berkeley.edu> <87385ds54y.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33939) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVFJQ-0007vc-7v for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:14:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVFJL-0007w7-8V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:14:48 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:54297) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YVFJL-0007v1-2T for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:14:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87385ds54y.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> (Eric S. Fraga's message of "Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:06:37 +0000") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Richard Lawrence Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, "Thomas S. Dye" Eric S Fraga writes: >> We keep the existing syntax for keys, which disallows key-ending >> punctuation, but we also allow a second style of key, in which curly >> braces surround the key name proper, like: >> >> @{Doe1999} > > I like this much better. I'd rather have a single syntax for keys. Since this one is not much more intrusive than the previous one, we could as well drop @key in favor of @{key}. Regards,