On 2008-March-15 , at 00:14 , Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
On Friday, March 14, 2008, at 03:00PM, "jiho" jo.irisson@gmail.com wrote:
- Bibdesk was running but the bib file not opened. the command opened
it (I have one set as default)
It should also parse the .tex file and figure out what .bib file to open, as well. No guarantee of reliability though :).
OK. since I am using multiple files I was not sure it would find it. Anyway I only have one master bib file for now.
but probably did not wait long enough and returned with the message "this command should be used with bibdesk 1.3.0" etc
That's odd. It tries repeatedly for 10 seconds to establish a connection to BibDesk, which should be plenty of time. That message is only displayed if the connection fails but some version of BibDesk is running, so the assumption is that it's an old version.
well it seems 10 sec was not long enough for me, the machine was quite crowed with other processes at this time ;) Offtopic: overall, Bibdesk takes quite some time to load since the switch to the new file linking system. I really like it but it seems more resources intensive. FYI my bib file contains just over 500 refs, weights 1.2Mb (hell that's a lot for text!) and I am using Bibdesk on a macbook with 1Gb of RAM. I guess the only remedy would be to drop bibtex as a storage format but maybe there's something wrong on my end.
- the second time, I closed the bib file again but since bibdesk was
active it took less time to reopen it. however nothing happened after that in textmate (no completion propositions, no error/warning message)
If you can reproduce that, please follow up with me off-list so I can fix the problems if possible. I only use it occasionally these days, so it doesn't get much testing on my part.
I'll use this from now on (and still try to figure what makes the ruby parser choke on my file, it may be the symptom of a deeper issue).
Even valid BibTeX is really hard to parse correctly, unfortunately.
Charilaos Skiadas is investigating this. I corrected as much as I could in the bib file (no more warnings in bibdesk). The minimal bibtex exported from bibdesk work so it is definitely something related to the other, more custom, fields. I'm guessing some strange character in an abstract copied form a PDF but can't find it. Since there are probably a large proportion of TM+LaTeX users that also use BibDesk it would be nice to know what fails.
Thanks for your help and your work,
JiHO --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/