Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bionet!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bruce!goanna!isaac
From: isaac@goanna.oz (Isaac Balbin)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: unmarked footnotes in LaTeX
Message-ID: <2361@goanna.oz>
Date: 7 Sep 89 22:47:29 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 13

Well, I don't know if this is a bug somewhere, nor do I know
if it has been discussed before, but I will bring it up nonetheless.
On p156 of the LaTeX book, we are told that when using \footnotetext
"It produces a footnote, ... , except that no footnote mark is generated".
Indeed, the comments inside latex.tex tell us
%   \footnotetext[NUM]{TEXT} : Command to produce the footnote but no 
%                              mark.  \footnote is equivalent to
%                              \footnotemark \footnotetext .
Yet, on p156 in figure C.1 we see that a mark _is_ inserted.
Indeed, when you try this example, or any others, the mark is inserted
as well.
So, is the documentation wrong? If so, what is the preferred way to 
generate a footnote without the mark?