# Indentation of shorthands list

A subdivision of my of my references is a shorthands list. In order to get it to look like the other subdivision, a regular authoryear-ibid bibliography, I've added this to the preamble:

\DeclareBibliographyDriver{shorthands}{%
\usedriver
{\DeclareNameAlias{sortname}{last-first}}
{\thefield{entrytype}}
\finentry}


That works. Now the problem is that the bibliography is formatted with hanging indentation. I would like that for the shorthands list as well. I've tried with:

\DeclareBibliographyDriver{shorthands}{%
\indent
\usedriver
{\DeclareNameAlias{sortname}{last-first}}
{\thefield{entrytype}}
\finentry}


... but instead of indenting the shorthands is makes weird dot between the blocks. How do I indent the shorthands?

Edit: This is what my output looks like now:

I like how it is except I would like hanging indentation in the above shorthands list in the same style as below.

The layout of the shorthand list is controlled by the bibenvironment in which it is set. This is usually the shorthands environment, which is designed to have prominent labels. To change this, you need to define an appropriate alternative environment.

For instance, if you define

\defbibenvironment{myshorthands}
{\list{\thefield{shorthand}}{%
\itemsep\bibitemsep
\parsep\bibparsep
\labelwidth 0pt
\labelsep 0pt
\leftmargin\bibhang
\itemindent-\bibhang
\def\makelabel##1{\mkbibbold{##1}: }}}
{\endlist}
{\item}


And then print your list of shorthands with

\printshorthands[env=myshorthands]


You will get the following (I've shown the bibliography too so that you can compare them).

You should be able to fiddle with the list definition and label definition to adjust it more to your taste. I find it a bit of a black art, I'm afraid. There's a really useful account of how the standard list environment that is being used here operates in this pdf paper from the Dutch TeX users' group.

I should say, however, that I don't think this is a terribly brilliant plan. With a list of abbreviations you really want to have the abbreviation immediately obvious, and I fear you are pursuing consistency at the price of convenience to your reader. But that's up to you.

• @ Paul Stanley: That would seem like the way to do it. You might be right that is could make things a little complicated and might give me some other problems. If there's no easy solution I'll consider if it's worth the fiddling or I should stick with what i got. – MajorBriggs May 6 '13 at 12:47