Re: footnote renumber bug

[Matthew Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org>]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

> Matthew Lundin wrote:
>> Footnote.el, by contrast, was designed for short email messages in which
>> there is no distinction between source text and exported text. Though it
>> serves this limited purpose admirably, it offers only a very rudimentary
>> numbering system rather than a complete markup solution. For any complex
>> writing (e.g., a research paper with dozens of footnotes), footnote.el
>> is well-nigh impossible to use. There are simply too many chances of
>> broken or mixed up links.
>>   
>
> Ignoring the guts of org-modes footnote implementation, just my impression
> of footnote.el:
>
> it's fine by architecture and --if patched-- well capable for all things
> you want to do with footnotes.
> Can't see any limitation concerning larger texts.
> It simply wasn't --or isn't-- written to the end.

Thanks for the clarification. Reading over my email, I believe I may
stated some conclusions about footnote.el too strongly. What I should
have said is that *in my own experience* I have found footnote.el
difficult to use (in its pre-patched form, of course). 

Try as I might, I could never get Footnote-renumber-footnotes to do
anything. And if I moved any footnotes in the original text, deleted
them manually, or reopened a document with footnotes,
Footnote-add-footnote behaved unpredictably, creating duplicate numbers,
skipping numbers, putting footnotes in the wrong order, placing
footnotes randomly above and below the "Footnotes:" line, etc. 

Very likely, my issues with footnote.el were due to my own lack of
understanding of its mechanics, and I can see how your patch fixes
things up quite a bit. It will be a really nice contribution to emacs if
footnote.el is fixed, since modes such as Muse rely on it.

Also, my apologies for a somewhat wordy defense of org-footnote. I wrote
it only because I am a very big fan. :)

Regards,
Matt