# Unexpected behavior in authoryear-comp (biblatex) [closed]

I'm a reasonably experienced XeLaTeX + BibTeX + natbib user trying to transition to using biblatex.

I want to generate a citation label such as "(Doe et al. 2001a,b, 2002)" despite the fact that the three entries all have distinct (unique) lists of authors. So far, using MacTeX-2011, the best I can get is "(Doe et al. 2001a; Doe et al. 2001b; Doe et al. 2002)".

Any ideas how I could achieve that? I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

Please note that I'm asking how it might be done, rather than whether it should be done at all. I understand that you might not like this citing convention.

Here is my source file:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{filecontents}{test.bib}

@article{doe2001a,
title = {foo},
year = {2001},
author = {J. Doe and R. Smith},
journal = {Nature}
}

@article{doe2001b,
title = {bar},
year = {2001},
author = {J. Doe and B. Dylan},
journal = {Science}
}

@article{doe2002,
title = {foobar},
year = {2002},
author = {J. Doe and B. Dylan and R. Smith},
journal = {WSJ}
}

\end{filecontents}

\usepackage[%
style=authoryear-comp,
backend=biber,
maxbibnames=99,
maxnames=1,
uniquelist=false,
uniquename=false]{biblatex}

\begin{document}

\noindent
\parencite{doe2001a,doe2001b,doe2002}.

\printbibliography

\end{document}

-

## closed as too localized by lockstep, Alan Munn, Caramdir, Joseph Wright♦Oct 12 '11 at 10:17

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Your example gives for me – with MacTeX 2011 and biblatex 1.6 – “(Doe et al. 2001a,b, 2002)”. Which biblatex version are you using? –  domwass Oct 6 '11 at 13:27
Wow. That was easy.I upgraded biblatex from 1.5 to 1.6 and voilà. Thanks, domwass! –  Mathieu D Oct 6 '11 at 13:57
I suggest one of you post an answer to the question so that we can close the topic. The answer being: this behaviour had been fixed in biblatex 1.6 version. –  Martigan Oct 12 '11 at 8:22