From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: footnote renumber bug Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:31:09 +0200 Message-ID: <2405F8E3-A2F6-4088-857E-6CC7A2DC4BC3@gmail.com> References: <4A4C59EE.9020602@online.de> <0D680B96-4638-44E1-8351-3E6E4F89A404@gmail.com> <4A4F0C97.2090102@online.de> <87zlbkqjgw.fsf@fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MNYMo-0007LR-N8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:31:18 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MNYMk-0007H6-PS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:31:18 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60586 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MNYMk-0007Gs-IC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:31:14 -0400 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.150]:57070) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MNYMj-0004q8-Qd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:31:14 -0400 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 3so747520eyh.36 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87zlbkqjgw.fsf@fastmail.fm> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Matthew Lundin Cc: emacs-orgmode Mailinglist , Andreas Roehler On Jul 4, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Matthew Lundin wrote: > Andreas Roehler 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 > them. > > (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 > footnote. > > [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