Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: >> Would it make sense to allow this to hook into org-footnote-action? > > What do you mean by hooking it into `org-footnote-action'? To replace > default action with this?
To have a defcustom that let you choose preferred method. Whether the default should be changed I don't know. > This is not possible ATM because it doesn't handle inline footnotes at > all (this requires some work in "org-src.el", since > `org-src--edit-element' wasn't designed to edit inline objects), and, There's no need IMO. ATM it moves to the second colon and I don't see other logical ways to handle it. > as you noticed it doesn't allow to create footnotes either (though this > one is trivial to fix). Would be great. > Also, jumping to a footnote may still be useful, e.g. with nested > footnotes. It is symmetric, too. Of course. But in particular when editing it may be useful to have a view like this where you can see both the main text and the fn buffer: |--------| | main | | buf | |--------| | fn buf | |--------| > However, interestingly, if both behaviours become mostly equivalent, we > have first-class key bindings to choose from: "C-c C-o", "C-c '", "C-c > C-c". C-c C-c would then depend on a defcustom, I guess. At least it's a pity if C-c C-c only works in some cases, e.g. "if not narrowed". >> Note that new footnotes currently break the narrow, which is pretty >> annoying. > > I know. This is bad, indeed. OK. Rasmus -- ⠠⠵