[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2505 in lilypond: Patch: Doc: NR clarified \fo

From: lilypond
Subject: Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2505 in lilypond: Patch: Doc: NR clarified \footnote command as a TextScript
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:45:03 +0000

        Cc: address@hidden

Comment #24 on issue 2505 by address@hidden: Patch: Doc: NR clarified \footnote command as a TextScript

Ok, I am officially an idiot. When I proposed using a postevent, I had only thought about notes and rests, but footnotes may appear in a number of other places.

And something like
\breath <>\footnote #'BreathMark ...
is decidedly ugly, and
\breath c'\footnote #'BreathMark ...
is even breathtakingly ugly.

Changing \footnote back into a normal music event does not mean that it can't, in general, not be used as a postevent, you just have to remember writing - before it.

Another possibility would be to let it actively _take_ a music argument and be a music function (like \tweak except for argument order). Then we would have
\footnote\breath #'(2 . 3) "Zis iz a brezmak"
\footnote c2 #'(1 . 2) "A c note"
<c \footnote e #'(0.4 . 3) "a third">4
c-\footnote -3 #'(3 . 2) "a fingering"

This would have the material to footnote always in a fixed position and would rarely if ever require specifying a particular grob.

While it would be possible to have the material to attach to follow at the end (like with \tweak), I think it is a bit more natural to use the above order, and it turns out that the parser is up to it nowadays.

Yes, I know, critical issue and everything. Sue me. I'll probably have to revert the merge commit for the previous footnote change in issue 2518, but that should work out reasonably well as long as _this_ patch has not been committed.

Oh, and this argument order won't work for an automatic convert-ly rule. For an automatic convert-ly, the argument to attach to would have to be last, so that would be
\footnote #'(2 . 3) "Zis iz a brezmak" \breath
\footnote #'(1 . 2) "A c note" c2
<c \footnote #'(0.4 . 3) "a third" e>4
c-\footnote #'(3 . 2) "a fingering" -3

The internals are very much the same, so I'll start working on it. But there should be agreement on the syntax. I like the first variant better, but it means we (and everybody else) have to convert \footnote use manually.

The second variant would likely _mostly_ continue to work. Hm. Perhaps that is not good enough anyway.

reply via email to

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