^na modifier works bad...

Hi guys,
When you are working in a manuscript in which Harvard Style is required, usually you need to omit the author's name in the reference. That's why, amongst other reasond, BS provides the ^na modifier. For one author this work perfect. However, with multiple references it is no the case. If you select multiple references in the reference list, and use the Shoot/Supress author function the result is something like:

[Pavlopoulos 1998 ^na #1535 / Pavlopoulos 2002 #1641 / Pavlopoulos 2003 #1668 / Pavlopoulos 2006 #1467]

This is not correct because when you format the manuscript the first reference omit the name but not the others. So, one has to include manually the missing ^na, Like this:

[Pavlopoulos 1998 ^na #1535 / Pavlopoulos 2002 ^na#1641 / Pavlopoulos 2003 ^na#1668 / Pavlopoulos 2006 ^na#1467]

I think the function should include all the ^na modifiers. It doesn't make sense you have to complete the reference. Or am I using this function not properly?


PD. This is not the case for ^np.

There are cases when the

There are cases when the writer only mentions the first citation's author name in the main text and want to exclude the author name in the formatted citation, while need to keep the author name in other citations.

I agree, I have also

I agree, I have also considered this case in some manuscripts. However, the software could consider both of the cases. Of course you can add manually the remaining ^na modifiers, but this could be an automatic task.