[conceal] \cite, \citep, \citet to key list or just a simple marker

[whisperity]

This is a suggestion request to extend Vimtex's conceal feature with handling \cite, \citep, and \citet. If possible, it should be concealed out with either a (...) (where ... is the bib key for the cited work), or with [X] where X is a literal X to show there is a citation there, instead of the lengthy sequence a bib key could take.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if conceal can handle "parsing" such elaborate sequences.

[lervag]

I don't think Vim can do this type of "advanced" conceals, that is, we can only do relatively simple replacements.

To be able to answer/consider this request more clearly, perhaps you could show some examples of specifically how you would like this to work? I think the following shows approximately what I think can be achieved:

% Raw tex
See e.g. \cite{myref} for more info.
\citet{myref} show that ...

% Concealed
See e.g. [myref] for more info.
[myref] show that ...

A "perfect" solution would of course parse the reference key, but I think that is impossible (or at least too hard for me to consider). Further, a perfect solution would differentiate \citet and \citep and similar, but I would propose to simplify this to concealing boundaries, i.e. \cite…{ -> [ and } -> ]. But is this sufficient for this to be an interesting feature?

[whisperity]

No need for it to be perfect. And yes, I know the conceal is iffy... e.g. for C++ I couldn't even manage to get it to conceal else if and else and if differently, even... 😦

Parsing the reference key is definitely impossible in the general case, and not worth the effort.
The purpose of conceal is to remove the bloat. The \cite(t|p)? here is bloat, similarly how \emph is bloat if your terminal supports italic letters in the first place.

Is it hard to "throw away" the insides of the concealed boundaries?

[lervag]

Parsing the reference key is definitely impossible in the general case, and not worth the effort.

Good to hear we agree on that.

The purpose of conceal is to remove the bloat. The \cite(t|p)? here is bloat, similarly how \emph is bloat if your terminal supports italic letters in the first place.

Well, if we concealed \cite{xxx} so it looks like [xxx], then it could be hard to realize that this is really a citation and not just the actual text [xxx]. But I guess if you were to use this feature it would probably be what you want.

Is it hard to "throw away" the insides of the concealed boundaries?

I'm not sure what you mean, please try to show by example (raw vs "concealed variant").

So far, it seems my listing in the previous comment seems like an acceptable proposal for the feature.

[whisperity]

Is it hard to "throw away" the insides of the concealed boundaries?

I'm not sure what you mean, please try to show by example (raw vs "concealed variant").

\cite{John2012Measurement,Anne2017Bifurcation} becomes [X], rather than [John2012Measurement,Anne2017Bifurcation]. "Always" X to simulate the citation becoming some number-in-brackets when you "print" the document.

I know in reality the citstion depends on style factor, but when it comes to reading the source text of the document, [X] is a good enough approximation.
Given concealmode set to only conceal when not editing but reading, this makes you go "Oh yeah there's some cites there." and that's useful.

(In many cases, the bib keys for stuff doesn't even make sense, sites generare either an auto increment ID (like IEEE) or the DOI (like ACM or Springer) as the bibkey.)

[lervag]

I would propose an option: let g:vimtex_syntax_conceal = {'cites': n} where n is 0 to disable (default value, perhaps?) and with two variants:

% Raw TeX
Bla bla bla, see Ref.~\cite{John2012Measurement,Anne2017Bifurcation}. For more info, see also \cite{Bob2025Mystery}.

% Concealed with g:vimtex_syntax_conceal = {'cites': 1}
Bla bla bla, see Ref.~[X]. For more info, see also [X].

% Concealed with g:vimtex_syntax_conceal = {'cites': 2}
Bla bla bla, see Ref.~[John2012Measurement,Anne2017Bifurcation]. For more info, see also [Bob2025Mystery].

If you think this looks like a sufficient summary, then I'll look into if it is doable (without too much "hacking").

[whisperity]

I like the idea. Maybe instead of a numbers 1 and 2, the configuration option could be a "word" like Xs or keys.

[mawkler]

Perhaps this is too difficult to implement, but it would be awesome if VimTeX showed the citation that would be generated in the PDF. For instance the number that \bibliographystyle{IEEEtranS} would generate.

For example, given Bla bla bla, see Ref.~\cite{John2012Measurement,Anne2017Bifurcation}. For more info, see also \cite{Bob2025Mystery}., when generating a PDF it would with \bibliographystyle{IEEEtranS} look something like this:

Bla bla bla, see Ref. [1]. For more info, see also [2].

It would be awesome if the concealed text looked something like above. The VimTeX feature doesn't necessarily have to look at the value of \bibliographystyle{IEEEtranS}, but it would be nice if it were easy to tell each concealed citation apart, while still being nice and short to remove the bloat.

Again, this may be way too difficult to implement, but I just want to throw the idea out.

[lervag]

Perhaps this is too difficult to implement, but it would be awesome if VimTeX showed the citation that would be generated in the PDF.

Ah, yes, I'm sorry. This is too hard. The syntax conceal feature in Vim/neovim is quite limited (see :help syn-conceal for the details), and one such limitation (as far as I know) is that we can't dynamically replace text. In fact, we can only replace a syntax element with a single specified character (see :help syn-cchar).

So, to achieve [x], we actually need to use a hack where the initial part is concealed with [, the ending } is concealed with ], and the content is concealed with x. I'm not sure I will even be able to do this in a sufficiently robust manner, but I will try.

[whisperity]

Perhaps this is too difficult to implement, but it would be awesome if VimTeX showed the citation that would be generated in the PDF.

Bla bla bla, see Ref. [1]. For more info, see also [2].

Again, this may be way too difficult to implement, but I just want to throw the idea out.

Definitely impossible to implement, and not just because of Vim's limited functionality, but to do this, you'd need to either: reimplement a significant part of the compilers, or use an integration that jacks into the actual compilers (like clangd for C/C++) and retrieves this data. This is an overexaggeration and I didn't look into it scientifically, but LaTeX is at least Turing-complete, but there is a high chance that the grammar is so deeply context-sensitive that it's undecidable in the general case. (C++ has similar issues in many case.) And, come on, to build a LaTeX document with cites, you have to run the compiler at least three times(!!!), plus bibtex somewhere down that road, and what latexmk is doing under the hood is running the compiler iteratively until the previous and the current output document stays the same. I.e. latexmk is prepared to do multiple rounds of iteration, which is pretty funny when you have a nondeterministic package somewhere down the road.

And this gets even worse when you got bib styles which are some sort of author-year combination, and the author names contain escape sequences or are generated by macros, etc... I am not saying this is completely impossible, but it would require both more than the conceal feature, and some true compiler integration...

---

Personal suggestion about bloats and whatnot: first, set concealcursor=nc, so in insert mode you're getting unconcealed text. Second, create a keybind that toggles concealment:

  function! ToggleConcealLevel()
      if &conceallevel == 0
          setlocal conceallevel=2
      else
          setlocal conceallevel=0
      endif
  endfunction
  nnoremap <silent> <C-c><C-y> :call ToggleConcealLevel()<CR>

[whisperity]

So, to achieve [x], we actually need to use a hack where the initial part is concealed with [, the ending } is concealed with ], and the content is concealed with x. I'm not sure I will even be able to do this in a sufficiently robust manner, but I will try.

There is one issue with conceal that I found is that it seems the same location in the buffer can't have multiple concealments apply. I could never manage to differently conceal else if from else and if in C/C++. But I have to admit I'm lacking knowledge about Vimscripts and configuration in detail. However, [x] seems much more doable at face value than [1] and then [2].

[lervag]

There is one issue with conceal that I found is that it seems the same location in the buffer can't have multiple concealments apply. I could never manage to differently conceal else if from else and if in C/C++.

Sorry, but I don't quite understand how you would want that C/C++ conceal. Reg. multiple concealments: it doesn't really make sense to apply multiple conceals at the same position. Conceal is basically used to hide text, but it does allow to replace with a single character. If something is hidden, you can't hide it more.

[whisperity]

Sorry, but I don't quite understand how you would want that C/C++ conceal. Reg. multiple concealments: it doesn't really make sense to apply multiple conceals at the same position. Conceal is basically used to hide text, but it does allow to replace with a single character. If something is hidden, you can't hide it more.

Mind, I do not want it from you! But basically what I was is to have one character conceal for if, a different one for else if and a third one for else. So I'd want the following code snippet:

if (foo) {
  return 1;
} else if (bar) {
  return 2;
} else {
  return 3;
}

in concealment to look like this:

▸ (foo) {
  ⏎ 0;
} ▹ (bar) {
  ⏎ 1;
} ▪ {
  ⏎ 2;
}

But instead, it looks like this (note that else if instead of concealed as a "token" together, becomes two concealed tokens, else and if with their conceal chars, respectively):

▸ (foo) {
  ⏎ 0;
} ▪ ▸ (bar) {
  ⏎ 1;
} ▪ {
  ⏎ 2;
}

[mawkler]

An alternative to replacing citations with [X] that I would like to suggest and that might be easier to implement is to show a unicode symbol instead, like this:

% Raw TeX
Bla bla bla, see Ref.~\cite{John2012Measurement,Anne2017Bifurcation}. For more info, see also \cite{Bob2025Mystery}.

% Concealing with unicode symbol
Bla bla bla, see Ref.~🕮. For more info, see also 🕮.

Perhaps the exact symbol used could be customizable by the user so that they could use a nerd font glyph if they wanted.

[lervag]

Mind, I do not want it from you! But basically what I was is to have one character conceal for if, a different one for else if and a third one for else. So I'd want the following code snippet:

This should be possible. You need to understand the order of syntax statements. The last one is checked first. So, you need to add the else if after. Feel free to contact me by mail if you want more input on this - if so, show me the code you use that fails.

@Melkster I actually like that suggestion a lot. It is much easier to implement than [x], since it relies on a single substitution character. One question: Would you want the same feature for both \citet and \citep (and similar)?

@whisperity What do you think?