[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Orgmode] Re: footnote renumber bug

From: Carsten Dominik
Subject: [Orgmode] Re: footnote renumber bug
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:31:09 +0200

On Jul 4, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote:

Andreas Roehler <address@hidden> writes:
Carsten Dominik wrote:

On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote:

Org did not implement automatic renumbering and sorting because
it makes less sense to do so if footnotes are inline, or named
and referenced multiple times.

IMHO renumbering should be able to cope with all this circumstances.
With named footnotes "renumbering" might no longer be the appropriate
term then...

I believe already Carsten built this feature into
org-footnote-auto-adjust. If turned on, it automatically renumbers
footnotes with automatic labels (fn:1) and sorts footnotes with custom
labels. Also, in addition to nil and t, you can also set the variable to
"sort" or "renumber". E.g.,

(setq org-footnote-auto-adjust 'sort)

With this setting, org-mode will still automatically sort your footnotes in the order in which they appear in the document but will not renumber

(BTW, thanks, as always, Carsten for such a flexible implementation of
this new feature. Astonishing!)

I can see that, when using footnotes in an isolated
small document and automatic footnote lable generation,
automatic renumbering and sorting is indeed useful.

In this case, you could fall back to footnote.el.
However, Org does internally have functions to sort
and renumber footnotes, so there is no reason why we could
not call them after generating or deleting a note.
Lets see ... OK,  in the latest git version of Org, use

  (setq org-footnote-auto-adjust t)

My suggestion:
Make it cope with inline, named and referenced multiple notes;
then set it to t by default.

I tested it, and it already copes with a mix of numbered, inline, and
named footnotes. Here are some settings that might be used to provide
maximum flexibility for working with all sorts of footnote labels:

(setq org-footnote-auto-label 'confirm    ;; [1]
     org-footnote-auto-adjust t          ;; [2]
     org-footnote-define-inline nil)     ;; [3]

[1] Offers a prompt with automatic labels, e.g. fn:1, but gives the user
the option of changing the label or leaving it blank for an inline

[2] From my preliminary testing, I discovered that setting this to t
means that org-mode will (a) automatically renumber footnotes with the
fn:1 style notation; (b) automatically sort both named and numbered
footnotes to match their order in the text; and (c) leave inline
footnotes alone.

[3] This is the default setting, but I included it here for the purposes
of example.

   - Note: If one uses inline footnotes with automatic labels[fn:1:
     Such as this footnote], the labels will be renumbered to match
their order in the text. Obviously, sorting would be irrelevant in
     such an instance.

I have mixed feelings about turning on automatic renumbering by default. I think the key issue would be whether doing so would cause any problems
or unnecessary overhead for people who do not use auto labels or who
prefer unlabeled inline footnotes. Although it's probably trivial, if
automatic renumbering were the default behavior, org-footnote-action
would alter the buffer globally without the user explicitly requesting
or permitting it---or even being aware of it.

I am hesitating too.  The reason for this is that Org can collect
footnotes into a special section, or leave them locally.
Before Org kicks the the footnotes into some place which
may or may not be the place a user intended, it is OK to learn
about the options and set them.

Maybe a FAQ entry about these issues would be helpful.... ?

- Carsten

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]