Hi,
Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated
> branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing.
>
> In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like
> constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them.
Thanks a lot!
> As a consequence, "fn:" can now be unambiguously removed from label and
> become part of the syntax. Thus, [fn:1] is labelled "1" and [fn:label]
> is labelled "label".
Can I now write:
X[fn:1]
[1] foot
If so, why the need for the fanciness? Why not just require label and
reference to be the same? I doesn’t sound like something that would be
nice to have to explain to an Org newcomer.
> I don't really mind adding it back, but it ought to be a separate
> function, with a different design. It is not really possible to treat
> non-Org buffers as Org ones (cf. `orgstruct-mode' problems). However,
> before spending time on it, I'd like to know if there is any incentive
> to use it over, e.g. `footnote-mode' right from the start?
No there is not. You can probably get the desired style with
(Footnote-set-style 'unicode). We can eventually add keybindings for
footnote-mode in norgstruct that resemble Org, if necessary.
Rasmus
--
I feel emotional landscapes they puzzle me
