https://github.com/aerijo/tree-sitter-biber

Tree sitter parser for `.bib` files (biber syntax)
https://github.com/aerijo/tree-sitter-biber

Last synced: 2 months ago
JSON representation

Tree sitter parser for `.bib` files (biber syntax)

• Host: GitHub
• URL: https://github.com/aerijo/tree-sitter-biber
• Owner: Aerijo
• License: mit
• Created: 2018-06-20T23:32:40.000Z (over 6 years ago)
• Default Branch: master
• Last Pushed: 2019-10-24T08:20:08.000Z (about 5 years ago)
• Last Synced: 2024-10-17T17:52:59.253Z (3 months ago)
• Language: JavaScript
• Size: 209 KB
• Stars: 3
• Watchers: 1
• Forks: 2
• Open Issues: 0
• Metadata Files:
  • Readme: README.md
  • License: LICENSE

Awesome Lists containing this project

README

        
# tree-sitter-biber

[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/Aerijo/tree-sitter-biber.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/Aerijo/tree-sitter-biber)

[![Build status](https://ci.appveyor.com/api/projects/status/78i0q81h6qo9qn1p?svg=true)](https://ci.appveyor.com/project/Aerijo/tree-sitter-biber)

Tree sitter parser for `.bib` files using `biber` syntax. This is subtly different to the original `bibtex` syntax, but largely similar.

The main differences are how comments are handled. For `bibtex`, anything outside an `@` entry or command is a proper comment. In `biber`, this is also a comment but is considered "junk" (and warns you appropriately in the log file). Instead, `biber` requires `%` to consider a line a proper comment.

Similarly, the comment command is also treated differently. In `bibtex`, the parsing of the command stops immediately after `@comment`. So `@comment{this is a comment}` is equivalent to `@comment this is a comment`, because neither sentences are considered inside a command or entry. In contrast, `biber` will grab the entire body, and throw an error if it doesn't exist. I.e., `@comment this is an error` will throw because `biber` is expecting an opening delimiter (brace or parenthesis).

Here's a scenario where this may be relevant in real life:

```

@comment{email me at [email protected]}

```

`biber` will be fine, but `bibtex` will throw an error (because the entry `domain` has no valid opening delimiter).

And, to be fair to `bibtex`, this will break `biber` but not `bibtex`:

```

@comment{ { }

```

More can be found here https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/261261/are-comments-discouraged-in-a-bibtex-file/262282

Importantly, `%` is _always_ a comment outside of a string in biber. So another real life difference is

```

@ARTICLE{auchunbekannt,

  title = {Beispielaufsatz},

  journal = {Zeitschrift},

  year = {2001},

  %volume = {7},

  pages = {1--35, 99--291},

  annotation = {lorem},

}

```

where `bibtex` will throw an error, but biber just considers the `volume` line to be a comment.

Similarly,

```

@BOOK(Car%ey,

,

  AUTHOR="G. V. Carey",

  TITLE="Mind the Stop: A Brief Guide to Punctuation", PUBLISHER="Penguin",

  YEAR="1958"

)

```

The extra comma is necessary for `biber`, and the key name is `Car`. For `bibtex`, the extra comma throws a "missing a field" error, but the key is completely valid (though good luck referencing it in the document).

Note that special TeX characters inside of entries, besides ones `biber` (and `bibtex`) actually looks for, are effectively ignored. So it is not really possible to accurately parse the contents of a string, nor desirable for a faithful parser. If you have an unescaped `%` in the string, it will break when the citation is used in a document (but is completely valid `biber` syntax).

This answer also does a good job of explaining what the actual terms `bibtex`, `biber`, `natbib`, and `biblatex` actually refer to.

https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/25701/bibtex-vs-biber-and-biblatex-vs-natbib