Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!spqr From: spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: sorting in bibtex Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 91 12:01:11 GMT References: <790@utrcu1.UUCP> <1991Feb7.175558.9848@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1991Feb9.203132.6226@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@ecs.soton.ac.uk Organization: Southampton University Computer Science Lines: 25 In-reply-to: opbibtex@Neon.Stanford.EDU's message of 9 Feb 91 20:31:32 GMT In article <1991Feb9.203132.6226@Neon.Stanford.EDU> opbibtex@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Oren Patashnik) writes: By contrast, author-date styles encourage flabby writing. For instance many such styles almost require the passive voice---"It has been shown [Knuth 76] that ..."; the `plain' style avoids the passive voice---"Knuth [13] shows that ..." The usage `it has been shown (Knuth 1987)' is often found in BibTeX usage because of the difficulty of getting \cite{Knuth/87} to produce (1987), as in `Knuth has shown (1987)'; yes, I know about \shortcite, but that's not distributed as standard with BibTeX. I find it much easier to follow the argument in `Knuth has so often shown (1983, 1984, 1990)' than in `Knuth has so often shown (13, 67, 89)', because the year references provide an intermediate clue about whether i want to bother following-up the reference. I like very much to have instant feedback on the date of a reference, and I also like the fact that, in a field with which I am familiar, I recognize `Knuth 1986' as "oh yes, that paper, I've read that", without having to bother flick through the bibliography. Sebastian -- Sebastian Rahtz S.Rahtz@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET) Computer Science S.Rahtz@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bitnet) Southampton S09 5NH, UK S.Rahtz@sot-ecs.uucp (uucp)