Hi,
I can't see any disadvantage to your new approach - but why not keeping the old and the new completion commands for some time (just to be able to see whether there are hidden advantages to the Bibdesk approach)
Christof
Am 26. Jan 2006 um 01:42 schrieb Charilaos Skiadas:
Hey all, sorry for the mass email. If you are not using the LaTeX bundle, you can safely ignore the rest.
I am currently working on the various completion commands in the latex bundle, and I am considering dropping bibdesk support in the completion commands in the following way: Instead of asking bibdesk for the completion list, I have a command read that does the following: It collects a list of bib files from the following locations:
- the files pointed to by the environment (or project specific)
variable TM_LATEX_BIB, space separated (use quotes if the filename contains spaces). 2. If either the file pointed to by the variable TM_LATEX_MASTER, or the current document (if saved), or both, contain any text of the form \bibliography{bibfile}, it adds this bibfile to the list of bib files to examine.
It scans all these bib files for the cite keys, and uses those for completion. It will look for titles for the pop-up menu. So there will be (actually there already are) two commands, one that works with Esc (normal completion) and one that brings up a pop-up of possible completions.
The above will be faster than calling Bibdesk through applescript. And you can of course still create citations by dragging them items from Bibdesk and dropping them in textmate. The main question is whether calling Bibdesk has any advantages compared to the approach I outlined above, and whether the approach above misses something. Your feedback would be much appreciated.
Haris
For new threads USE THIS: textmate@lists.macromates.com (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't) http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate