lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: mike
Subject: Re: \footnote 'bug' (or not?)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:15:38 +0200

On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:42 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:

> 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).

Sorry - I missed your original suggestion :(  I'll look for it!

Cheers,
MS


reply via email to

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