Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
Hello, Simon Thum writes: > Same here (yes please!), for the same reason ;) > > On 12/19/2015 04:27 PM, Thierry Banel wrote: >> I vote "yes". >> It was annoying to see bracketed numbers as links to nowhere. >> >> The Nobel prize for the detection of the neutrino _[1995]_ was >>FrederickReines and the prizes for the discovery of neutrino >>oscillations _[2015]_ were Takaaki Kajita & Arthur McDonald. >> >>The resulting sets are [1,2,3], [1,2], _[1]_ >> >> >> Le 17/12/2015 11:03, Nicolas Goaziou a écrit : >>> Hello, >>> >>> As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated >>> branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. >>> >>> In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like >>> constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them. >>> >>> As a consequence, "fn:" can now be unambiguously removed from label and >>> become part of the syntax. Thus, [fn:1] is labelled "1" and [fn:label] >>> is labelled "label". Pushed. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
Same here (yes please!), for the same reason ;) On 12/19/2015 04:27 PM, Thierry Banel wrote: I vote "yes". It was annoying to see bracketed numbers as links to nowhere. The Nobel prize for the detection of the neutrino _[1995]_ was FrederickReines and the prizes for the discovery of neutrino oscillations _[2015]_ were Takaaki Kajita & Arthur McDonald. The resulting sets are [1,2,3], [1,2], _[1]_ Le 17/12/2015 11:03, Nicolas Goaziou a écrit : Hello, As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them. As a consequence, "fn:" can now be unambiguously removed from label and become part of the syntax. Thus, [fn:1] is labelled "1" and [fn:label] is labelled "label".
Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
I vote "yes". It was annoying to see bracketed numbers as links to nowhere. The Nobel prize for the detection of the neutrino [1995] was Frederick Reines and the prizes for the discovery of neutrino oscillations [2015] were Takaaki Kajita & Arthur McDonald. The resulting sets are [1,2,3], [1,2], [1] Le 17/12/2015 11:03, Nicolas Goaziou a écrit : Hello, As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them. As a consequence, "fn:" can now be unambiguously removed from label and become part of the syntax. Thus, [fn:1] is labelled "1" and [fn:label] is labelled "label".
Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Rasmus writes: > >> Can I now write: >> >> X[fn:1] >> >> [1] foot > > Uh? No. > [...] Very good! Thanks for clarifying. Rasmus -- A page of history is worth a volume of logic
Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
Hello, Rasmus writes: > Can I now write: > > X[fn:1] > > [1] foot Uh? No. > If so, why the need for the fanciness? Why not just require label and > reference to be the same? I doesn’t sound like something that would be > nice to have to explain to an Org newcomer. I just mean that, internally, (org-element-property :label reference) => "1" not "fn:1" anymore. In the buffer, "fn:" is part of the syntax and, as such, always present: X[fn:1] [fn:1] foot Thanks for the feedback. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
Hi, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated > branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. > > In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like > constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them. Thanks a lot! > As a consequence, "fn:" can now be unambiguously removed from label and > become part of the syntax. Thus, [fn:1] is labelled "1" and [fn:label] > is labelled "label". Can I now write: X[fn:1] [1] foot If so, why the need for the fanciness? Why not just require label and reference to be the same? I doesn’t sound like something that would be nice to have to explain to an Org newcomer. > I don't really mind adding it back, but it ought to be a separate > function, with a different design. It is not really possible to treat > non-Org buffers as Org ones (cf. `orgstruct-mode' problems). However, > before spending time on it, I'd like to know if there is any incentive > to use it over, e.g. `footnote-mode' right from the start? No there is not. You can probably get the desired style with (Footnote-set-style 'unicode). We can eventually add keybindings for footnote-mode in norgstruct that resemble Org, if necessary. Rasmus -- I feel emotional landscapes they puzzle me
[O] [RFC] Removal of [1]-like footnotes
Hello, As discussed previously, I pushed changes about footnotes in a dedicated branch, "wip-no-plain-fn", for testing. In a nutshell, in this branch, Org no longer recognizes [1]-like constructs as valid footnotes, an no longer spend time matching them. As a consequence, "fn:" can now be unambiguously removed from label and become part of the syntax. Thus, [fn:1] is labelled "1" and [fn:label] is labelled "label". In the process, I had to rewrite `org-footnote-normalize', which used to turn every footnote in a document into [1]-like footnotes. Now, it turns them into [fn:1] footnotes. However, this function also contained a part dealing with non-Org buffers, e.g. just before sending an email, this function could turn Org footnotes into footnote.el-compatible footnotes. This is no longer present currently in the branch. I don't really mind adding it back, but it ought to be a separate function, with a different design. It is not really possible to treat non-Org buffers as Org ones (cf. `orgstruct-mode' problems). However, before spending time on it, I'd like to know if there is any incentive to use it over, e.g. `footnote-mode' right from the start? Feedback welcome. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou0x80A93738