Expose cmark_node_parent_footnote_def.

[ioquatix]

@phillmv in ioquatix@1717040 you introduced a better internal representation for footnotes.

I maintain a fork/interface for Ruby.

We cannot generate the same footnotes as the internal HTML renderer because the public interface doesn't expose all the required details.

This is an attempt to start a discussion around what that interface should look like.

• There are no tests - should we add some?
• The interface cmark_node_parent_footnote_def seems clunky - what is _def and should this really be part of the name?

[phillmv]

This seems fine to me!

[ioquatix]

Awesome, look forward to getting this merged!

Should we rename cmark_node_parent_footnote_def to cmark_node_parent_footnote?

[phillmv]

what is _def and should this really be part of the name?
Should we rename cmark_node_parent_footnote_def to cmark_node_parent_footnote?

def refers to CMARK_NODE_FOOTNOTE_DEFINITION and IIRC it's used to denote the, well, definition of the footnote, i.e.

[^footnote-def]: this is a definition

in contrast to CMARK_NODE_FOOTNOTE_REFERENCE, which a reference to a footnote, i.e.

lorem ipsum[^footnote-def].

It's consistently in the codebase and I don't really see a compelling reason to rename.

Cheers,