[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes
From: |
Rasmus |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:09:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
> Rasmus <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>>> * Foo
>>>> [1] foo
>>>>
>>>> * Bar
>>>> Baz[1]
>>>
>>> I'm not sure to understand. Would you mind elaborating?
>>
>> If I have #+INCLUDE: "example-above.org::*Bar" then point-min of the
>> include area will be pushed forward by four since the definition of [1] is
>> changed to fn:1-1 or something like that. So min-marker should be a
>> marker. Or I'm misunderstanding something.
>
> No, you're right. However, this raises a question: why are we modifying
> definition at all? We are only interested in its new label, which we can
> get without modifying buffer (i.e. if definition is within range, modify
> it, otherwise, compute new label and store its definition).
We modify buffer because that's what we want to do when including whole
files.
The routines /could/ be split up, I just deemed it "not worth the
trouble". Operations on the table are of course limited to when it's
needed. Buffer-editing is not. It's simple to wrap it in an if-statement
if you think it's worth it, e.g. performance-wise. I'd only need to move
the catching of new-label back to the footnote-reference.
>> + (org-with-wide-buffer
>> + (let* ((definition (org-footnote-get-definition label))
>> + (beginning (line-beginning-position)))
> There's one potential problem here: `org-footnote-get-definition' may
> return a nil value if there is no matching definition for label. Maybe
> throw an error?
Ox already throws an error when a footnote is not found in
org-export-get-footnote-definition which is why I didn't add this. But I
guess it would be friendly to add another error here stating which *file*
is missing a footnote and I added this now.
> Also, BEGINNING should refer to (nth 1 definition) since you're not
> using `org-footnote-goto-definition' and therefore, not moving point.
Indeed. Thanks.
> I think you can push once the issues above are fixed. Thank you for the
> work.
Cool. I think the #+INCLUDE-keyword is quite a bit better in 8.3 now and.
Thanks for all the help on this series of patches (I think four in total)!
—Rasmus
--
However beautiful the theory, you should occasionally look at the evidence
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, (continued)
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/12/24
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Rasmus, 2014/12/24
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Rasmus, 2014/12/24
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/12/21
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Rasmus, 2014/12/21
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/12/22
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Rasmus, 2014/12/22
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/12/22
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Rasmus, 2014/12/22
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/12/22
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes,
Rasmus <=
- Re: [O] [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes, Rasmus, 2014/12/24
- [O] [git-101] How to push a branch and avoid merge-message? (was: [bug, patch, ox] INCLUDE and footnotes), Rasmus, 2014/12/24
- Re: [O] [git-101] How to push a branch and avoid merge-message?, Nicolas Goaziou, 2014/12/24