Hi,

I fixed the nitpicks, but no major changes.

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Pleonasm.
>
> Note that the regexp can match even if not at a footnote reference [...]:

Fair enough.

> In a thousand years, scholars might debate over the secret meaning
> behind these symbols.

Let's hope so!  In the meantime i will let the user shoot herself in the
foot at specify wrong labels.

>>> This marker is not necessary since you're not going to add contents
>>> before (point-min) anyway. A plain number is enough.
>>
>> I might if I include *Bar here:
>>
>> * 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.

> The more I look at it, the more I'm seduced by
>
>       (unless included
> 	(org-with-wide-buffer
> 	 (goto-char (point-max))
> 	 (maphash (lambda (ref def) (insert (format "\n[%s] %s\n" ref def)))
> 		  footnotes)))))))))))
>
> I'm really nitpicking, tho.

Since it's soon Christmas, so I could perhaps accommodate.

>>      ;; Append ID to all footnote references and definitions, so they
>>      ;; become file specific and cannot collide with footnotes in other
>>      ;; included files.
>> +    ;; Further, collect relevant footnotes outside of LINES.
>
> You can include it in the previous paragraph, or insert a blank comment
> line, as it wouldn't survive a M-q.

Let's M-q it then.

>> +		(goto-char (1+ (org-element-property :begin reference)))
>> +		(when label
>
> Shouldn't these two lines be inverted?

Sure that's prettier.

Cheers,
Rasmus

-- 
ツ