From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix renumbering for footnotes at BOL.
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:03:04 +0200
Message-ID: <87zkhnfqlz.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87ehyzk8n5.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <877h4rh8z2.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87aa9nk1n9.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50024)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1R9GHm-0008It-F5
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:04:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1R9GHd-00032i-5S
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:04:22 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:48989)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1R9GHc-00031j-Ne
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:04:13 -0400
Received: by bkbzs2 with SMTP id zs2so766237bkb.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87aa9nk1n9.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> (Tassilo Horn's message of
	"Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:51:06 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

>> About your patch, I have but one question: I don't get a situation in
>> which the assert would be triggered, may you give me such an example?

> I don't either, and that's a good thing.  I added that just as some
> extra paranoia so that you get an error if a footnote gets broken.

Well, provided the first part of the function doesn't modify the buffer,
I still don't see how the assert could fail, even with a broken
footnote. Now, I may also be less paranoid than you are in that case.

Do you still think that assert should be a stayer? If so, I'll apply
your patch.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou