Re: Adventures with org-footnote-auto-adjust

[tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye)]

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

> Hello,
>
> tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:
>
>> I've learned that there are certain conditions (I don't know how many)
>> where the space after a sentence won't accept a footnote insertion.
>
> There shouldn't be any of such conditions.

Great.  I'll be on the lookout and will report when I find them.

>
>> The example sentence is one of these. Apparently, it is the `~.'
>> combination that triggers the condition. Org is good enough to
>> prohibit inserting a new footnote into one of these "black holes"
>> (which is how I discovered them), but it doesn't mind if I cut and
>> paste a footnote into one.
>
> I fixed it. Footnote references should be allowed there.

Yes, I can confirm that this is fixed.  Thanks!
>
>> I'm not certain how much mischief this might have caused. I discovered
>> the problem when the text of *both* footnotes in a section of the
>> document were incorrect.
>>
>> In my case, org-footnote-auto-adjust doesn't perform any crucial
>> function--it just makes the Org mode buffer seem more orderly.  Given
>> that there are "black holes" in the buffer, whose presence have the
>> ability to confuse org-footnote-auto-adjust so that data are lost,
>> should org-footnote-auto-adjust be deprecated?
>
> `org-footnote-auto-adjust' still does its job when, for example, a new
> footnote is created or a footnote is deleted. It is fragile when
> copy-pasting a footnote reference across some text.
>

In my case, the intended effects of `org-footnote-auto-adjust' were
purely cosmetic in the Org buffer and didn't affect the output.  Is
there a situation where it does something that has an effect on output?

> Anyway, it should be possible to fix most of these "black holes", if
> only we are aware of them.

OK. Apologies for the graphic term. I hope it didn't offend. Dismay got
the better of tact, I think.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com