Development discussion

[ghost]

Hey Rainymood,

Thanks for merging my commits. Are you going to continue the development? Below are a few things that I think need to be done:

1. Restructure the script so that Scholar querying and manual entry adding sit in separate functions
2. Implement better handling of command-line arguments, see http://www.tutorialspoint.com/python/python_command_line_arguments.htm -- this would allow for specifying the filename etc.
3. Use the manual entry feature as the fallback option in case a reference is not found in Google Scholar (this has been my reason to add the manual thing in the first place)
4. Possibly use OOP -- make a class for a bibliography entry object. As you might have noticed, the piece of code I wrote repeats yours in many aspects which means it could be a class with fields (author, title etc.) and methods.

[Rainymood]

I only meant this to be a hack but all the ideas you propose seem very valid and useful. You are free to implement them, I have little time but will try to see what I can do!

[ghost]

Cool, I will certainly implement some of the ideas and send you more pull requests.

On 18 Apr 2016, at 21:36, Jan Meppe notifications@github.com wrote:

I only meant this to be a hack but all the ideas you propose seem very valid and useful. You are free to implement them, I have little time but will try to see what I can do!

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #2 (comment)

[OrganicIrradiation]

I think that using click would help address 2. However, it may just be a dependency that does not provide much. Worth consideration though.

Regarding 3, a manual entry feature should be documented with examples. The ideal situation would be to parse a citation, as with freecite.

Also, it would be useful to add a license file.