>
> For greater flexibility, would it be feasible to allow users to create and
> name any number of their own modes (rather than having two "hard-coded")?
>
>
Just to put my two cents in, I had thought about that as well and almost
suggested it in the OP. If a single project could employ certain settings
in various modes that aren't necessarily *not* final, for instance, and OLL
could help easily navigate those modes, it would certainly be an advantage
to using OLL in general. :-)
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Jeffery Shivers <jefferyshiv...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'd appreciate any thoughts on the following syntax for implementing
> footnotes with annotations:
>
> \criticalRemark \with {
> message = "my annotation"
> } #'(1 . 2) "my footnote" Slur a4_\the-footnote-hook ( ...
>
> vs.
>
> \criticalRemark \with {
> message = "my annotation"
> footnote-offset = '(1 . 2)
> footnote-text = "my footnote"
> } Slur a4_\the-footnote-hook ( ...
>
> vs. either of the above *without* the need for the footnote hook at all.
> I'm not totally sure how easy/possible it would be to automate the footnote
> by the presence of offset/text arguments, but I certainly think it would be
> work trying. Of course, I can see why taking away that need for a hook
> could also be considered somewhat intrusive of the package, so opinions
> *against* that would be good to hear.
>
> In the first example, the offset and text arguments would be optional. And
> of course anything in the annotation properties list (like
> footnote-offset/text in the second example) are always optional, except for
> message, I think.
>
> Thanks!
> jeffery
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Paul <p...@paulwmorris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2016 10:03 AM, Urs Liska wrote:
>>
>>> Implementation-wise it is basically nothing to add another mode by
>>> simply allowing additional values for the "mode" option. Packages can also
>>> quite easily implement that by extending the conditionals in their
>>> functions to respond to more than two modes. However, to be useful this
>>> must be discussed rather on the conceptual side, i.e. what kind of mode
>>> would make sense and how to propagate that through different packages
>>> (doesn't make much sense to have a mode that doesn't do much). So, this
>>> aspect is where this discussion should be done. FWIW, just creating an
>>> arbitrary option and configuring your personal files to do some
>>> configuration based on that option might as well provide everything you
>>> asked for, without even touching the openLilyLib packages themselves. HTH
>>> Urs
>>>
>>
>> Ah, ok, I see. In that case, please disregard my thought.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
