Re: [O] [patch] more robust footnotes

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Rasmus writes: > >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >>> >>> I suggest to avoid calling repeatedly >>> `org-export-get-footnote-definition'. Also, if the footnote reference is >>> anonymous, there is no

Re: [O] [patch] more robust footnotes

Hello, Rasmus writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >> I suggest to avoid calling repeatedly >> `org-export-get-footnote-definition'. Also, if the footnote reference is >> anonymous, there is no point in calling `org-element-map'. The following >> is more

Re: [O] [patch] more robust footnotes

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > You don't seem to use the latter. Does it still make sense to provide > it? No. > I suggest to avoid calling repeatedly > `org-export-get-footnote-definition'. Also, if the footnote reference is > anonymous, there is no point in calling

Re: [O] [patch] more robust footnotes

Rasmus writes: > (:latex-default-table-mode nil nil org-latex-default-table-mode) > (:latex-diary-timestamp-format nil nil org-latex-diary-timestamp-format) > (:latex-footnote-separator nil nil org-latex-footnote-separator) > +(:latex-footnote-defined-format nil

Re: [O] [patch] more robust footnotes

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > You sent the wrong patch. Ups...! -- Vote for proprietary math! >From 880eb2047f7895a4d767ce59b9fe13465b5a16a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rasmus Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 20:33:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ox-latex: More robust

Re: [O] [patch] more robust footnotes

Hello, Rasmus writes: > The GOAL is to make "pretty" latex and not clutter every footnote with > labels. I understand that. I actually misread the code. > I think the logic is better now, but it uses the plain > org-export-map rather than org-export--footnote-reference-map.

[O] [patch] more robust footnotes (was: Bug: When exporting to PDF an Org file where multiple footnotes share the same definition, only the first footnote is clickable [8.3.4 (8.3.4-39-ge0acd8-elpaplu

Hi, Thanks for comments. Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> Though perhaps there’s a more efficient way to get the first >> footnote-reference to a given definition than trawling through with >> org-export--footnote-reference-map. > > Couldn't you refer to the definition