It would be really hard in spirit : Edict of Nantes always was concieved as a practical and temporary settlement, even in the late XVIth century, first because it created political power "holes" within the kingdom (a reason why Louis XIII and Richelieu focused on breaking their autonomy, rather than their religious identities).
At the very best, you'd maintain the really restrictive interpretation of the Edict of Nantes, from which everything that was not specifically authorised was forbidden, and with a social life institutionally limited for Protestants : IOTL it was the only way to obtain significant conversions (as well a significant migration) before the revocation.
Now, I did say "in spirit" because of Edict of Fontaineblau could have been significantly delayed or butterflied away : IOTL, it was acknowledged after a first time, that it failed to really meet its intent : with a stronger inner opposition, with relations between the clergy and Louis XIV being less tense (the edict was as well a way to mend some differences with Rome) and with the realization than breaking with protestant realms and states could be a greater blunder than it was first concieved.
You would end with a strong pressure on Protestants nevertheless, altough they it would be relatively lesser, and possibly allowing a return to Alès status-quo more easily in the XVIIIth century.
And what would be the consequences of a France with a continued Huguenot minority?
You did IOTL : only 10 to 15% of french protestant did leave, the rest either going underground or in revolt. Most of the active persecutions meet an end after Louis XIV's death, and while you had outburst of strict application of the laws in 1724 and 1736, and when new intendents arrived as demonstration of strength; crypto-Protestantism became to be slowly more open and by 1750's you had a de facto tolerence (if dominated tolerence).