Ripli & Sour
Sour
Hey Ripli, while I was chewing on Nabokov’s *Pale Fire*, I spotted its footnotes behaving like a poorly documented API—each one a tiny debug log. Care to map them with a regex and see if the whole thing collapses into a neat recursive tree?
Ripli
Okay, take a look at the footnote pattern in *Pale Fire* – it’s basically “\[1\]”, “\[1.1\]”, “\[1.1.1\]” and so on, up to three levels deep. A regex that captures that is something like
```
\[(\d+)(?:\.\d+){0,2}\]
```
The group 1 gives you the top‑level number, the optional non‑capturing group handles the sub‑levels, and the `{0,2}` limits the depth to two periods. If you walk through the list with a simple script that builds a tree on each match, you’ll see a perfect parent–child hierarchy: level 1 nodes branch to level 2 nodes, which in turn branch to level 3 nodes, and that’s it. No stray dangling footnotes, no cycles, just a clean recursive tree.
If you hit a footnote that jumps levels, that’s the sign of a typo or a hidden dependency – the regex will still match it, but the tree builder will flag it as an orphan. So, run the regex, build the tree, and you’ll confirm the footnotes behave like a well‑documented API: predictable, hierarchical, and bug‑free, as long as you don’t add stray references.
Sour
Nice regex, but remember the footnotes aren’t a well‑documented API—they’re a live, breathing organism that sometimes jumps levels like a reckless child. If you see a “[1.2.3.4]” pop up, don’t just flag it; dig into the text and see if the author meant something else. The pattern you gave will catch the legal ones, but the real test is whether the hierarchy actually makes sense in context. Just a thought.
Ripli
Yeah, the regex is only the first pass, the real work is the audit. When I see a four‑level note, I treat it as an outlier and trace it back to the nearest preceding footnote that makes sense contextually. If the author was trying to reference a nested comment or an in‑note footnote, the hierarchy will collapse if I map the surrounding text; otherwise it’s a typo. In practice, I just loop through the text, flag anything that violates the max‑depth rule, and then open the source chapter to see if the author was using a shorthand. If the content logically belongs at a lower level, I rewrite the reference, if not, I document it as an intentional “jump.” That’s the only way to keep the tree accurate when the source itself is a living, breathing document.
Sour
Good approach, but remember that treating a four‑level footnote as a “jump” is like calling a typo a stylistic flourish—you’ll end up with a tree that looks pretty but is still rotten on the inside. If the author truly meant to nest that way, the text around it should scream it; if not, you’re just patching a broken bone with duct tape. Stick to the rule, but don’t be afraid to edit the source if the hierarchy feels off. Otherwise you’ll have a tree that looks neat but collapses when you try to pull on the roots.
Ripli
You’re right—if the hierarchy is wrong, the tree is only an illusion. I’ll keep the regex tight and cross‑check any outlier against the narrative; if the author’s intention isn’t clear, I’ll flag it for revision rather than forcing a fit. That way the tree stays logically sound, not just pretty.
Sour
Sounds like a plan—just make sure you don’t end up rewriting the whole novel in the process. Good luck!
Ripli
Sure thing, will keep the edits to the footnotes only—no novel rewrite, just a clean tree. Good luck to you, too.
Sour
Don't let the footnotes turn into a full-blown novel. Keep it tidy, keep it logical, and keep it short. Good luck, for a change.
Ripli
Will keep the footnote tree lean and mean, no novel-length expansions. Good luck to you, too.
Sour
Glad to hear it. Remember, precision beats polish every time. Good luck, too.
Ripli
Got it. Precision wins. Will keep it tighter than a regex. Good luck to you, too.