Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> I think required definitions should be extracted from the included file >> and inserted at the end of the source file, without any footnote >> section. > > The "hard" solution. I will look into it. It may not be that hard, but it will require tests. You also need to check that the footnote definition doesn't appear within included area, in which case it needs not be moved. >> However, it would be nice to store associations between files >> and footnote labels in, e.g., a hash table, in order to avoid inserting >> multiple times the same footnote. > > What is your reasoning for this statement? Aesthetics, performance or > something else? Mainly performance, and to prevent some bugs that might be introduced with duplicate footnote definitions. The can is open, the worms wiggling. Have fun. Regards,
