Re: footnote bugs

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

Hi Carsten,

Thanks for reply.

By the way, for quite some time now for health reasons I have not been
able to deal with email much or contribute to org or polish my large
backlog of ideas or be detailed or do anything else.  Apologies if I
have neglected anything important.

Here is a brief response.

On 2010-04-14, Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> ASCII export of anonymous footnotes works fine for me.  here is an
> example for your text above:

Works for me now.  I have to leave a space before the text, which is fine.

> Also, when inserting a footnote, I can eave the label empty - the
> fact that this is not working for you must mean that you have some
> completion setup that takes over the generic function
> `completing-read'.

Works for me now.  I just c-j to select emptiness.

A minor suggestion.  It offers me a bunch of numbers for completion of
existing footnotes.  However, typing a number is easier than choosing
it with ido, and return to select emptiness is therefore more useful.
Maybe (maybe not) it would be possible to not have completion for
footnotes, optionally.  I realize some people use text labels.

> I guess you can hack the paragraph... regexps to make \par
> a separator.

Far beyond my ability now.  But would be nice, I agree.

> But I can follow you argument, so the definition is now search up
> in the buffer, before looking down.

My guess is that that will work just fine.

On a tilting at windmills sort of note (maybe too much effort since
footnotes seem to work now, at least in these ways), I still think
that it might possibly allow for parsimonous code to replace all of
the footnote code with ID markers.  :)  If the idea is sound, then
this would allow one codebase for multiple functionalities for less
maintenance.  The syntax would look the same to the user because of
overlays.

It also would allow future features without introducing or modifying
syntax.  I have followups from long ago on this topic that I haven't
polished yet that explains further, but I think I mentioned it before.
 No reply necessary, just pointing out another windmill.  Not a
feature request!  I can't defend it now.

Thanks.

Samuel

-- 
Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years]
==========
Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html