Ihor Radchenko writes on Wed 31 Aug 2022 09:57: > This is not a bug. Just unintuitive syntax: > [...] > The important part is: It ends at the next footnote definition, > headline, or after two consecutive empty lines. > > So, your example is > > foo[fn:1] > > <begin footnote-definition>[fn:1] bar > #+begin_example ;; <- this is not considered an example block because no > major org elements can be inside a footnote definition. > > > <end footnote-definition after two empty lines> > <begin paragraph>x > #+end_example > <end paragraph>
Thanks a lot for answering. Is there an official definition for "major org element" ? (I could not find anything relevant in the manual.) I guess a headline would qualify (and it would not have occurred to me to use a headline within a footnote; the manual is clear in that respect anyway). But then a list item would probably qualify as well? But, as far as I can see, lists and footnotes work perfectly well together... (because 2 consecutive empty lines also mark the end of a list item?) Furthermore, as long as there is not more than one empty line in a row, blocks also appear to me to work just fine within footnotes, including upon latex export, and I use things like the following all the time: #+LATEX_HEADER: \usepackage{fancyvrb} #+LATEX_HEADER: \VerbatimFootnotes foot[fn:1] [fn:1] note #+begin_src fortran print*,"foo" #+end_src I simply never had to use 2 consecutive empty lines in blocks up to now... So I guess I'll turn my "suspected bug" into a feature request: that #+BEGIN ... #+END blocks behave the same way whether they are within a footnote or not. Regards -- EOST (École et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre) ITE (Institut Terre & Environnement) | alain.coch...@unistra.fr 5 rue René Descartes [bureau 106] | Phone: +33 (0)3 68 85 50 44 F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France | [ slot available for rent ]