Hi gang,
Here is something strange:
\definenote[metanote][conversion=set 2]
\startbuffer[footnote]
test test test test test test test test
\footnote{This is a basic footnote.
\metanote{This is a footnote to a footnote.}}
test test test
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Idris Samawi Hamid wrote:
Hi gang,
Here is something strange:
[snip]
will not compile:
==
! Missing number, treated as zero.
to be read again
\@@vnmetanoten
\dochecknote ...\relax \ifnum \noteparameter \c!n
Idris Samawi Hamid wrote:
Hi gang,
Here is something strange:
\definenote[metanote][conversion=set 2]
\startbuffer[footnote]
test test test test test test test test
\footnote{This is a basic footnote.
\metanote{This is a footnote
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
I am not sure if this is the correct behaviour or should definenote
should change to make sure that something like this works. I tend to
think that this is the correct behaviour. Do you really need to define
the note inside a group?
it's correct behaviour;
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:57:19 -0700, Aditya Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I tend to
think that this is the correct behaviour. Do you really need to define
the note inside a group?
Not really, I was just trying to avoid redundancy (putting the definition
in the buffer is for
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:41:13 -0700, Idris Samawi Hamid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:57:19 -0700, Aditya Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I tend to
think that this is the correct behaviour. Do you really need to define
the note inside a group?
Not really, I was
