Re: Footnotes lost in description terms

[Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>]

nico wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 19:52:23 +0200, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks, it works fine.
>>>
>>> But as a side effect (not introduced by the patch) it seems that 
>>> putting
>>> footnotes in a term sets a fixed width to this term: in the example the
>>> term wraps, even if I set width=broad in the description definition. If
>>> the term does not contain a footnote, it is not wrapped.
>>>
>> send me a test file showing both
>
> Here it is. The first and third description terms containing footnotes 
> are wrapped. The second term does not contain footnote and is not 
> wrapped (it's the file committed in contexttest).

it took me quitea while to find out that it's in the the description 
preroll which meant that the calculated width was too small and 
therefore the real thing wrapped

\long\def\nododonote#1#2%
  {\doifnot{#1}{-}
     {\ifconditional\pagewisenotes
        \doifreferencefoundelse{\s!fnt:t:\internalfootreference}
          {\ifnum\currentrealreference>\lastnotepage\relax
             \globallet\lastnotepage\currentrealreference
             \resetnumber[\currentnote]%
           \fi}
          {}%
      \fi
      \incrementnumber[\currentnote]%
      \makesectionnumber[\currentnote]%
      \let\lastnotenumber\composedsectionnumber
      \dolastnotesymbol
      \decrementnumber[\currentnote]}}



-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------