Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes: Hi!
>> 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. > > Well, provided the first part of the function doesn't modify the > buffer, I still don't see how the assert could fail, even with a > broken footnote. Now, I may also be less paranoid than you are in > that case. You are right. And the regex doesn't even match broken footnotes, that is, footnotes with missing numbers. > Do you still think that assert should be a stayer? Nope, feel free to remove that line. Bye, Tassilo
