Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello, > > t...@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
