Am Mittwoch, 3. August 2011, 16:39:59 schrieben Sie: > > An example of some undesired ordering is the other example I sent a > > few days > > ago. The first system is utterly messed up (maybe a bug), but there > > are also > > other "issues": The hairpin gets the footnote printed at the right > > end, but > > since it started earlier than another footnoted grob, its number is > > lower than > > a footnote printed before it. > > Actually, I may have spoken too soon re the hairpin: I can fully > conceive of the problem save one case. > > If one does \autoFootnoteGrob #'Hairpin #'(0 . -1) "foo" a\< > \autoFootnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(0 . -1) "foo" b > \autoFootnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(0 . -1) "foo" c > \autoFootnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(0 . -1) "foo" d > \autoFootnoteGrob #'NoteHead #'(0 . -1) "foo" e f\! > > I am not sure where the resulting number of the footnote should fall in > the categorization scheme with respect to other footnoted grobs. Any > thoughts?
I would say number them in order of visual appearance. E.g. if the footnote for the hairpin is printed at the beginning, treat it as if it were at moment 0, if the footnote sign is printed at the end treat it as if it were added at moment 6/4 in this case. That's what I would expect as a music user. Cheers, Reinhold -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
