On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:11 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:02 PM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> There is still a vertical spacing bug in the footnotes :
>>> \markup {
>>> \footnote e e
>>> \footnote e ef
>>> }
>>> There should be a fixed distance between the baseline and the number.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that Lilypond processes graphical objects before it processes
>> pagination, making it impossible to know exactly how much space a footnote
>> will take up when the graphical object is processed.
>>
>> One solution to this problem would be to reprocess all top-level markups
>> with correct footnotes after having done the pagination, then redo the
>> pagination and see if all the footnotes stay the same. If so, keep the
>> current configuration. Otherwise, rinse & repeat. This actually seems
>> kinda sorta doable, although I'd have to do some homework on how these
>> markups are stored internally and figure out to what extent these internal
>> representations survive downstream into the pagination phase.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mike
>
> Hey all,
>
> I posted a sketch for a two-pass footnote automatic numbering spacing
> algorithm to issue 4244064.
>
> I just need to figure out a better way to name the output file (you'll see
> it's current name in the patch), but it addresses Bertrand's concern about
> spacing in the grand majority of cases so long as people compile the same
> file twice back-to-back.
>
> Cheers,
> MS
I think (hope) that this is a safe way of going about i/o that will work on all
systems (see file-cache.scm). Let me know if it's problematic.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4244064/
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
