George_ <georgexu...@gmail.com> writes: > pkx166h-2 wrote: >> >> George, >> >> On 30 November 2011 22:16, George Xu <georgexu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Oops, sorry. 2.14.2. I guess that explains why \auto-footnote doesn't >>> work, but it doesn't help much... >>> >>> >> In the latest 'development' version >> >> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes >> >> This is explained in much more detail, \auto-footnote is explained here, >> but many of the 'automatic/manual' footnote functions are not in 2.14.x. >> >> See if this helps what you need with \auto-footnote as that is I believe >> in >> 2.14.x but wasn't documented as well in the 2.14.x manuals. >> > I updated to 2.15.20 to try solve this issue, by the way. > > I agree, the 2.15 docs seem to have it documented much better. Just > wondering, though, is there a way to get a body \markup footnote to look > like a top-level markup footnote? > > Also, if I may propose a small change to the docs, I think it should > explicitly say that body markups are treated as grobs. I know that it says > that top-level markups are treated differently, but I think it should point > out a bit clearer how other markups are handled, especially when it says: > > "Of the two commands used to create automatic footnotes, use > \autoFootnoteGrob for individual grobs (i.e. note heads, stems, slurs, > dynamics including \markup when using TextScripts); and \autoFootnote for > annotating chorded notes."
Why don't we have \footnote \default for autonumbering (just like with \mark), and why can't \footnote just look at the kind of its argument (just like with \parenthesize) to decide what it is annotating? I really don't see the need for half a dozen different commands. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
