Minor footnote suggestion

Minor footnote suggestion

[Alan L Tyree]

G'day,

A minor suggestion on org-footnote-action:

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.

Not exactly earth shaking :-).

Cheers,
Alan


-- 
Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206		sip:172385@iptel.org

Re: Minor footnote suggestion

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Alan L Tyree <alantyree@gmail.com> 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,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Minor footnote suggestion

[Alan L Tyree]

Nicolas Goaziou writes:

> Hello,
>
> Alan L Tyree <alantyree@gmail.com> 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