General ⇒ In-paragraph footnotes with bigfoot

[pippipalma]

Hello,
within bigfoot documentation it is said that:

Footnotes can be formatted in separate paragraphs, or be run into a single paragraph. The choice is made per footnote apparatus, but can be overridden for single footnotes.

However, while it is clear that \DeclareNewFootnote[para]{B}[alph] sets in-paragraph mode for the whole footnoteB apparatus, I'm not able to find how to choose, footnote-by-footnote, between in-paragraph and normal modes.

Do you have any suggestion?

Thanks and best regards,
Giuseppe

[cgnieder]

As I understand it from the source of the documentation footnotes defined with the para option can be set in a apargraph of their own using a + variant:

Code: Select all

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\DeclareNewFootnote[para]{B}
\begin{document}
Text\footnoteB{a paragraph footnote}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB+{this is in a new paragraph}
\end{document}

Regards

[pippipalma]

It is exactly what I needed, thanks!
There is still an issue (shown in the following MWE) I'm not able to understand:

Code: Select all

\documentclass{book}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\DeclareNewFootnote[para]{B}%[alph] % please uncomment the [alph] option to see the difference
\begin{document}
Text\footnoteB{a paragraph footnote}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB+{new paragraph}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB{another one}
text\footnoteB+{this is in a new paragraph}
\end{document}

Can you explain the difference between the two cases (in particular, I should use alphalph style, but it can be obtained by adding \renewcommand{\thefootnoteB}{\alphalph{\value{footnoteB}}})?
Is there any way to format alphabetic footnote paragraphs as they are in presence of numerical footnotemarks?

Thanks and best regards,
Giuseppe

[cgnieder]

I am not at home right now, so I can't test thoroughly now but this seems like a bug to me.

Regards