Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>> In any case, how about some of these alternative approaches to the issue
>> of handling footnotes from a narrowed buffer.
>>
>> 1. Retrieve the footnote in the minibuffer. E.g. org-footnote-action
>> shows the footnote-definition if it is outside of the narrow (and
>> known) in the minibuffer? E.g. 2. when using prefix.
>
> I suggested it already in this thread, i.e., if the definition is
> outside the narrowed part of the buffer, offer to widen and jump to it,
> or display the definition, or do nothing.
The problem is that narrow can be time-consuming to recreate. Consider
this narrow where I have to edit fn:1
* top
** h1
** h2
*** h3
Txt<point>[fn:1]
To recreate the narrow I have to go to *top, narrow to the subtree,
potentially collapse *h{1,2}...
> Actually, displaying the definition could be a separate binding (e.g.,
> C-u C-c C-c), since it could be useful even outside this case.
>
>> 2. Show the definition in the minibuffer as editable text (read input)
>> and update it if necessary.
>
> Then you have to deal with out of sync buffers, closed buffers,..
Wouldn't it only find definition in the same file? If you use a popup
indirect buffer narrowed to the footnote-definition in question I don't
think these problems can exist. In any case, this would seem similar to
the way ob handles code blocks.
> I'm pretty sure that in this situation, the user is able to widen the
> buffer himself and then jump to the definition in order to edit it. This
> would be a lot of trouble for a debatable benefit.
Sure, but recreating your narrow takes time. And it's annoying when you
want to review a section, say.
—Rasmus
--
And I faced endless streams of vendor-approved Ikea furniture. . .
