Re: footnote renumber bug

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

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

> Andreas Roehler <andreas.roehler@online.de> 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