From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan L Tyree Subject: Re: Minor footnote suggestion Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:25:12 +1100 Message-ID: <87pq0r3fxj.fsf@breezy.my.home> References: <51031A0B.2000307@gmail.com>,<87txq4gu7t.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44184) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TzBNT-00059y-HQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:25:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TzBNQ-0002w3-My for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:25:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:43736) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TzBNQ-0002vl-Gx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:25:20 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id kp14so822909pab.5 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:25:19 -0800 (PST) In-reply-to: <87txq4gu7t.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Alan L Tyree writes: > >> When positioned in footnote text, the function jumps back *to the >> beginning* of the footnote reference. It would be more convenient to >> jump to the end of the reference since that is where the author is >> likely to pick up typing the text. > > It was done this way because, if point at the end of the reference, you > cannot use C-c C-c another time to jump back to the definition. > > Also, if the buffer ends with the footnote reference, there is no such > place. So, sometimes, you will move after the reference, and other > times, it will be on its last character. > > I'm not sure which behaviour is the less annoying. > > > Regards, OK, I can see that. For my own use, the suggested behaviour would be better and the two situations you mention would only be a very occasional annoyance. The current behaviour has annoyed me 250 times so far in the one document :-). But I see your point -- it would be a compromise either way. Thanks for the answer. Cheers, Alan -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:172385@iptel.org