Shifted footnotes on PEP 595  #1098

Activity

1. JulienPalard

   assigned

   berkerpeksag

   and

   ezio-melotti

   on Jun 4, 2019
2. gvanrossum commented on Jun 4, 2019

   

   gvanrossum

   on Jun 4, 2019

   Member

   More actions

   You're right, they're out of sync. Probably something in the doc confuses the code that numbers footnotes? (Personally I don't like bottom-notes -- I prefer inline URLs. But that's a separate battle.)
3. hugovk commented on Apr 17, 2022

   

   hugovk

   on Apr 17, 2022

   Member

   More actions

   Please see PR #2534 to fix this.
4. CAM-Gerlach

   changed the title [-]Shifted footnotes on pep 595 [/-] [+]Shifted footnotes on PEP 595 [/+] on Apr 17, 2022
5. CAM-Gerlach commented on Apr 17, 2022

   

   CAM-Gerlach

   on Apr 17, 2022

   Last edited by CAM-Gerlach

   Member

   More actions

   There's actually quite a few instances of that throughout older PEPs; a lot of the ≈250 Sphinx warnings relate (ultimately) to misaligned footnote numbering. It wouldn't have been an issue if authors just used named auto-numbered footnotes instead of hardcoded or implicit numbers, but until I updated it recently, PEP 12 described both methods and lacked a clear recommendation (now it only specifies named auto-numbered footnotes, in cases where footnotes and not direct links are actually required).
6. CAM-Gerlach

   closed this as completedin #2534on Apr 17, 2022