On Aug 1, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011, 13:30:30 schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: >> AUTOMATIC-FOOTNOTES >> >> In automatic footnotes, there are three pertinent commands >> \autoFootnote >> \autoFootnoteGrob >> \footnote > > For the documentation: The first two are music functions, the third one is a > markup function. > >> footnote-auto-numbering (default = ##t) > [..] >> -- a function that takes ONE AND ONLY ONE INPUT, which should be an >> INTEGER, and returns the appropriate markup to be used in numbering the >> current prefabbed functions in output-lib.scm that work with this are >> `numbered-footnotes' and `symbol-footnotes'. You can create your own w/o >> too much hassle, ie: footnote-numbering-function = #(lambda (x) (markup >> #:tiny "thank you james!")) reset-footnotes-on-new-page (default = ##t) >> -- automatic footnote annotations reset on each new page. >> All non-automatic paper-block commands apply to automatic footnotes as >> well. > > How about calling that property footnote-numbering? > > >> NON-AUTOMATIC-FOOTNOTES >> >> *** ATTENTION *** >> For non-automatic footnotes, the paper block MUST contain >> footnote-auto-number = ##f Otherwise, LilyPond will spew numbers all over >> the page. >> *** NOITNETTA *** > > Why can't we have both auto-numbered and unnumbered footnotes at the same > time?
This is doable, but let's say that a user did. \autoFootnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(1 . 1) "bar" a1 \footnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(1 . 1) "*" "* bar" a1 \autoFootnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(1 . 1) "bar" a1 Should the bottom of the page read: 1. bar * bar 2. bar or 1. bar * bar 3. bar > The commands to use them are already different, so from a user's > perspective, they should also work independently. > The only thing that you need to change interface-wise is to add a > autoFootnoteMarkup function instead of the footnote markup function. > > I haven't looked at the code, but it should be straightforward to distinguish > auto-numbered and unnumbered footnotes (by setting a flag on them). > The numbering would then only work on those that use auto-numbering, all > others will not be prepended with a numbering... > This is doable via a property. I'll throw up a patch. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
