|
|
Post by Wormopolis on Mar 6, 2010 1:46:10 GMT -8
nope. it wasnt footnotes doing it.
it was the multiple post automerge code. the automege code looked for <hr> bars as the indicators of new posts. since footnotes added in a new hr bar, it was causing the automerge code to consider the footnote area as a new post and mucking things up.
grab the new version of the automerge code from my database. v 1.7
|
|
tutela
Not New Member
Posts: 17 
tutela said 0 great things
|
Post by tutela on Mar 6, 2010 1:48:26 GMT -8
Will do, will update you momentarily on if its successful  |
|
tutela
Not New Member
Posts: 17
tutela said 0 great things
|
Post by tutela on Mar 6, 2010 1:52:46 GMT -8
You are an ubergenius  . It works wonderfully, Thanks! One question, how did you find out the conflicts that applied to my site without having access to the code I am using, just curious  . Unless you used the source code to view? |
|
|
|
Post by Wormopolis on Mar 6, 2010 2:07:25 GMT -8
I used the source to see what you had running in that board. then I did each code in my head to see how they interacted (sometimes it works).
it might have also worked if footnotes came AFTER automerge, but its better to have them compatible anyways. automerge was one of the very first codes I wrote (because I was sick of people *brought to you by the letter b*ing about double posts). so some of the techniques I used were kind of simplistic. footnotes was written months later with better knowledge (and also as a challenge to those who said internal link references couldnt be done - I also wrote a bigger system call internal post links).
when you said it merged your post with a previous poster, and the fact that everything was being hidden in the post itself, made me suspect some kind of reconstruction code. I just didnt know it would be one of mine.
|
|