[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Doc: NR clarified \footnote command as a TextScript (issue 6137050)

From: pkx166h
Subject: Re: Doc: NR clarified \footnote command as a TextScript (issue 6137050)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 17:03:10 +0000

See inline. One more patch will be needed.
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1050: is to be attached but in that
case, it must be preceded by a @code{<>};
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
Seems like I caused you unnecessary work by being unclear.  I am sorry
for that.
  <> is a stopgap measure created by convert-ly since automatic change
postevent position of the real event is not feasible.

Ah ok. I see. I.e. you cannot make convert-ly change where the
'\footnote' command 'string' is in the .ly file so in this pre-event(?)
you just stick <> in place so it works.

\footnote should be documented as purely being a postevent, and the
should be changed accordingly from the state after automatic
conversion.  Any
explanation of <> or s1*0 belongs in a different part of the manual
talking about how to deal with postevents you have no anchor for.


The state after the automatic conversion is not really acceptible in
documentation: it only has the advantage of maintaining functionality.

Yes I see now.
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1059: <>\footnote #'(0.5 . -2)
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
So this, for example, should be changed to
          a'4\footnote #'(0.5 . -2) #'NoteHead
          \markup { The first note }
          b8 e\footnote #'(0.5 , 1) #'NoteHead
              \markup { The third note }
and so on.

Documentation/notation/input.itely:1068: % Chorded Notes
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
"Notes inside of a chord can be given individual footnotes." or
something like
this should be mentioned.

I've reworded it to be less specific than that. But the examples and the
new text should now indicate this fact more clearly than before.
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1072: g\footnote #'(2 . 2) \markup {
\bold "This is a G" }
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
Visual correction here?

Yes. I thought the indicator was too close to the measure 'above' - its
an a8 page size remember? This show the footnotes at the 'bottom' of the
page without needing huge space (for bigger page size), so you only get
one measure per line. Unless you compile this example I can see how this
correction might not make sense.
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1089: \footnote #'(-3 . 0)
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
Doesn't this give an error?  The footnotes are not in postevent
position.  I
think they would need to move after a'4.  Similar for the following

Yes you are correct. Thanks for spotting. I ran all (or thought 'all')
the example through a lilypond-book template that I have, one at a time,
so I could tweak-and-fiddle examples quickly - without having to build
the whole doc. I obviously missed this one!
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1138: Like automatic footnotes, the
@code{\footnote} command can be placed
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
See above: I'd not mention <> at all.

Documentation/notation/input.itely:1148: <>\footnote
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
Now I am baffled.  Reintroducing <> manually?  Or was this copy&paste
for some

Sigh - sorry. The <> was left in (because I didn't understand the post
event thing you discussed above. The rest of the example was when I
noticed that some lines caused the ugly black bars to appear in the PDF
output (when your line length exceeds certain length) so again I had to
fiddle-and-tweak the example to remove those.

Hopefully it is ok now.
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1177: \footnote
On 2012/05/12 14:25:08, dak wrote:
See above.  I should be surprised if this works unless you move the
after a'4.

Yes again, it was simply going up and down in the texi file that I
missed this.

However I now cannot work out how to footnote the '\breathe' mark as
wherever I put the \breathe command I get an error. I have left it in
for now commented out in case this is simply not understanding where it
goes, or if this is a change in the footnote behaviour since this code

This is different from the above example because I think that manual
footnotes were the only way at the time to footnote things like this
(that weren't attached to 'normal notes' so to speak), but it's all a
bit hazy.

reply via email to

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