3

today I discovered a strange behaviour of the style numeric-comp. Since I'm working with larger cite lists it happend that a reference is twice in the list which results that only the first reference is cited.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[style=numeric-comp,backend=biber]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
\listfiles

\begin{document}
\section{foo}
This works:
\cite{companion,knuth:ct,knuth:ct:a,knuth:ct:b,knuth:ct:c}

This is how to damage it:
\cite{knuth:ct:c,companion,knuth:ct,knuth:ct:a,knuth:ct:b,knuth:ct:c}

\printbibliography
\end{document}

enter image description here Shouldn't be the output also [1-5] if I use that second cite command?

File list:

*File List*
article.cls    2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX document class
size10.clo    2007/10/19 v1.4h Standard LaTeX file (size option)
biblatex.sty    2011/11/13 v1.7 programmable bibliographies
etoolbox.sty    2011/01/03 v2.1 e-TeX tools for LaTeX
etex.sty    1998/03/26 v2.0 eTeX basic definition package (PEB)
keyval.sty    1999/03/16 v1.13 key=value parser (DPC)
logreq.sty    2010/08/04 v1.0 xml request logger
logreq.def    2010/08/04 v1.0 logreq spec v1.0
ifthen.sty    2001/05/26 v1.1c Standard LaTeX ifthen package (DPC)
url.sty    2006/04/12  ver 3.3  Verb mode for urls, etc.
blx-compat.def    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex generic compatibility
biblatex.def    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex generic definitions
standard.bbx    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex bibliography style
numeric.bbx    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex bibliography style
numeric-comp.bbx    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex bibliography style
numeric-comp.cbx    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex citation style
biblatex.cfg    
english.lbx    2011/11/13 v1.7 biblatex localization
problem.bbl

My system:

$ uname -a
Linux Artemis 3.11.0-19-generic #33-Ubuntu SMP Tue Mar 11 18:48:34 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

$ dpkg -s texlive-full
Package: texlive-full
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: tex
Installed-Size: 90
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
Architecture: all
Source: texlive-base
Version: 2013.20130722-1
...

$ dpkg -s biblatex
Package: biblatex
Status: install ok installed
Priority: extra
Section: tex
Installed-Size: 9392
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
Architecture: all
Version: 1.7-1
Depends: texlive-latex-base, texlive-latex-recommended, texlive-latex-extra, logreq, etoolbox (>= 2.1), dpkg (>= 1.14.18), tex-common (>= 2.00)
Recommends: biber (>= 0.9.6)
Breaks: biblatex-dw (<< 1.2o-1)

closed as off-topic by moewe, Heiko Oberdiek, cmhughes, Masroor, dustin Apr 25 '14 at 16:46

  • This question does not fall within the scope of TeX, LaTeX or related typesetting systems as defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I am getting getting [1-5]: i.stack.imgur.com/xyzTz.png . May be some thing else is going on. – user11232 Apr 25 '14 at 5:42
  • 1
    @Freude When you say 'newest' I suspect you mean 'latest included in Ubuntu': that's a very different thing. If you add \listfiles to your input, what version is given for biblatex in the 'File list' (in the .log)? – Joseph Wright Apr 25 '14 at 6:13
  • 1
    The output is as expected here as well (biblatex 2.8a, Biber 1.8). – moewe Apr 25 '14 at 6:59
  • 1
    Yep. Your biblatex is very old, it's v1.7 from back in 2011; the current version is 2.8a. You need to update – moewe Apr 25 '14 at 8:30
  • 4
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is about an outdated version of the package (the issue could not be reproduced with the current version of biblatex)? – moewe Apr 25 '14 at 16:27

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.