Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes: > It looks like the original function isn't right in more than one way > (it doesn't even make sure the matched string is really a > footnote). But that's another topic.
Yes, indeed. > About your patch, I have but one question: I don't get a situation in > which the assert would be triggered, may you give me such an example? I don't either, and that's a good thing. I added that just as some extra paranoia so that you get an error if a footnote gets broken. Bye, Tassilo
