lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: \footnote 'bug' (or not?)


From: Neil Puttock
Subject: Re: \footnote 'bug' (or not?)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:42:14 +0100

On 24 July 2011 19:51, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:43 PM, James Lowe wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> From Neil P. explaining the finer points of footnote code, while looking at 
>> my in-progress Doc patch for footnotes
>>
>> --snip--
>>
>> \footnote associates a single footnote with a particular event in the
>> music (usually a NoteEvent); in a certain sense it behaves like
>> \tweak, though I'd suggest to Mike that it actually be changed so its
>> behaviour is identical.  Currently we have the situation where it's
>> awkward to add footnotes to individual scripts and fingerings:
>>
>> \relative c' {
>>  < c-1-\footnote #'(1 . 2) "foo" "bar" >
>> }
>>
>
> This works as such because it is within a chord.  \footnote is written to 
> work like \tweak.

Please re-read my suggestion.  \footnote doesn't work like tweak; if
it did, it would have music as the last argument, and apply the
FootnoteEvent to the following music.  I suggested this precisely
since it's not possible to add a footnote to a specific post-event
(mainly fingerings and articulations).  The documentation is at fault
here (it started with \balloon, since it implies it's similar to
\tweak).

>> -> doesn't apply footnote to fingering, still goes on notehead
>>
>> \relative c' {
>>   c-1-\footnote #'(1 . 2) "foo" "bar"
>> }
>>
>
> Here, you'd need to do:
>
> \relative c' {
>  \footnoteGrob #'Fingering #'(1 . 1) "foo" "bar" c-1
> }
>
> Because the fingering doesn't work like a tweak.

If \footnote behaved like \tweak, you'd do this:

c-\footnote #'(1 . 2) "foo" "bar" -1

Cheers,
Neil



reply via email to

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