Of course, I agree that we should get rid of the two-pass algorithm. But
it's really tricky to do it the clean way :o\
As the issues I pointed out need deep changes, I think the two-pass
algorithm is better than nothing.
For the moment, we can also avoid these issues by displaying footnotes
another way.
For instance (without using this numbering patch) :
\markup \footnote \line { a \raise #0.5 \tiny 1 } \line { 1. b }
\markup \footnote \line { c \raise #0.5 \tiny 14 } \line { 14. d }
This seems to be a good solution. We can even use this syntax instead :
\markup { a \footnote \raise #0.5 \tiny 1 \line { 1. b } }
I'm no specialist, I may be wrong. But I worked on footnotes a few month
ago and I met the same problems. The only solution I found to avoid them
is the way I wrote before.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4244064/diff/40002/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4244064/diff/40002/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode1856
scm/define-markup-commands.scm:1856: (markup-y-ext (ly:stencil-extent
markup-stencil Y))
Why is this defined ? I can't find its use.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4244064/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
