Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Stack problems with bibtex

3,303 views
Skip to first unread message

Geico Caveman

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 3:51:58 PM1/22/09
to
Hello,

I just changed the bst file I am using for a manuscript (from apsrev.bst to
pccp.bst) and the following errors popped up :

---the literal stack isn't empty for entry ranegres:03a
while executing---line 982 of file pccp.bst
ptr=1, stack=

I am getting these errors for some of the references but not all. I can't
seem to tell the difference between references that generate the errors,
and those that don't.

Here is the bib entry for the above reference :

@ARTICLE {ranegres:03a,
title = {Origin of efficient light emission from a phosphorescent
polymer/organometallic guest-host system},
author = {Negres, Raluca A. and Gong, Xiong and Ostrowski, Jacek C. and
Bazan, Guillermo C. and Moses, Daniel and Heeger, A. J. },
journal = {Phys. Rev. B},
year = {2003},
month = {September},
volume = {68},
number = {11},
pages = {115209},
}

Any ideas ?

Thanks.

Joseph Wright

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 4:02:03 PM1/22/09
to
Geico Caveman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just changed the bst file I am using for a manuscript (from apsrev.bst to
> pccp.bst) and the following errors popped up :
>
> ---the literal stack isn't empty for entry ranegres:03a
> while executing---line 982 of file pccp.bst
> ptr=1, stack=

pccp.bst is, in my opinion, buggy. Deleting the month field from your
database will solve this issue.

I've done a general RSC style as part of my rsc package, and have worked
hard to get rid of the bugs. However, it uses both natbib and mciteplus
(as I feel this makes life a lot easier). This does mean that it is
probably not suitable for use in a PCCP submission, unfortunately (or at
least, I've never tried it and I've not asked the editorial office about
it).
--
Joseph Wright

Geico Caveman

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 4:15:19 PM1/22/09
to
Joseph Wright wrote:

Thanks for the quick response.

I am using pccp.bst because that is what folks at Soft Matter suggest.

Joseph Wright

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 4:21:57 PM1/22/09
to

I'll perhaps talk to the RSC people about this (I also do the ACS style,
which is now "official").
--
Joseph Wright

Geico Caveman

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 4:41:43 PM1/22/09
to
Joseph Wright wrote:

I just adopted your suggestions (getting rid of the month in the bib file)
and sure enough, the stack issue is gone.

I then went one better, found your style (rsc.bst) and used that. Saw no
difference between pccp and rsc. The question is - how do I get
superscripted references (instead of [] style references) ?

Looking at the published papers in Soft Matter, that is what they do in the
published form, and I need to have an accurate idea of the paper length.

Joseph Wright

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 4:54:43 PM1/22/09
to
Geico Caveman wrote:
>
> I then went one better, found your style (rsc.bst) and used that. Saw no
> difference between pccp and rsc.

There are some sublte things wrong in pccp (I know as I spent a long
time looking at this!).

> The question is - how do I get
> superscripted references (instead of [] style references) ?

Depends on which version of rsc you are using. If it is version 2
(which doesn't need natbib) you do:

\usepackage[super]{cite}

On the other hand, the latest version of rsc (v3) uses natbib. I added
a "quick and easy" interface for this, so you do:

\usepackage[super]{rsc}

which handles some complexity. If you are using version 3, you'll need
to have an up to date version of "achemso" as well (I write both, and
there is some shared code which is bundled with achemso.)
--
Joseph Wright

Geico Caveman

unread,
Jan 22, 2009, 5:21:57 PM1/22/09
to
Joseph Wright wrote:

> Geico Caveman wrote:
>>
>> I then went one better, found your style (rsc.bst) and used that. Saw no
>> difference between pccp and rsc.
>
> There are some sublte things wrong in pccp (I know as I spent a long
> time looking at this!).

I did not mean to imply that rsc is no different from pccp ! Just that for
my particular case, I noticed no formatting differences (maybe rsc does not
give stack issues when the month field is present).

>
>> The question is - how do I get
>> superscripted references (instead of [] style references) ?
>
> Depends on which version of rsc you are using. If it is version 2
> (which doesn't need natbib) you do:
>
> \usepackage[super]{cite}
>
> On the other hand, the latest version of rsc (v3) uses natbib. I added
> a "quick and easy" interface for this, so you do:
>
> \usepackage[super]{rsc}
>
> which handles some complexity. If you are using version 3, you'll need
> to have an up to date version of "achemso" as well (I write both, and
> there is some shared code which is bundled with achemso.)

I looked at rsc.bst in my texlive install and could not find a version
number. Guessed it was v2 (you would use version numbers for later
versions, easy to forget for the first release), and got it going.

However, the bibliography still has [] style numbering (unlike published
articles). Simple fix in the preamble :

\makeatletter \renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{#1} \makeatother

Geico Caveman

unread,
Jan 26, 2009, 2:17:49 PM1/26/09
to
Joseph Wright wrote:

One additional question - is it possible to decrease the spacing between
references ? The spacing is a tad large compared to the spacing in
published articles.

Joseph Wright

unread,
Jan 26, 2009, 3:43:37 PM1/26/09
to
Geico Caveman wrote:
> One additional question - is it possible to decrease the spacing between
> references ? The spacing is a tad large compared to the spacing in
> published articles.

This one is not a BibTeX issue per se. See

http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=compactbib
--
Joseph Wright

0 new messages