[TxMt] Bibliography completion in the latex bundle

[jiho]

On 2008-March-15  , at 00:14 , Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> On Friday, March 14, 2008, at 03:00PM, "jiho" <jo.irisson at 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/