[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Implements footnotes in LilyPond (issue4245062)

From: Mike Solomon
Subject: Re: Implements footnotes in LilyPond (issue4245062)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:59:29 -0500

On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Neil Puttock wrote:

> On 5 March 2011 14:38, Mike Solomon <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Done - thanks for bearing with me as I learn about break-visibility.  It is 
>> a corner of the code that I never had to deal with directly, so I'm still 
>> getting my sea legs.
> I suggest you remove the fallback value from
> inherit-x-parent-visibility (or if you prefer, add another callback
> for y-parent visibility without a default) otherwise grobs which don't
> care about break-visibility (such as noteheads) will lose their
> footnotes.

Yikes...sorry, didn't realize it had this default.
I went with the y-parent visibility option, as I don't want to start writing 
convert-ly rules for inherit-x-parent-visibility.  This may be a good idea, 
though, for someone willing to take it on.

>> If you feel this is too hackish, I could make this direction-only (LEFT, 
>> CENTER, RIGHT) with CENTER defaulting to LEFT and have the footnote only 
>> apply to the first and last spanner.  But, for long spanners, this seems 
>> less than ideal.  As always, your suggestions are welcome!
> I'm afraid I'm at a loss to suggest anything better, so I'll have to
> put up with it (unless anybody else can think of a better way.

I agree that this is less than ideal.  Honestly, the only way I could think of 
would be to trigger system breaking before every page configuration evaluation 
(which would give us access to broken spanners).  But this would likely involve 
all sorts of rewrites that are the subject of another thread.

Patch attached - I just rebased the second one, as it is a minor change.

Lemme know what you think!


Attachment: 0001-Adds-support-for-footnotes-but-not-footnote-annotati.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: 0002-Implements-Neil-s-and-Joe-s-proposed-changes.patch
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]