Werner LEMBERG writes:
> [git commit e51c3e033564d84a687eea86832563197e8a9815]
>
> In the NR section 'Footnotes in stand-alone text with automatic marks'
> the following example is given.
>
> ```
> \book {
> \header { tagline = ##f }
> \markup {
&
Le 28/02/2022 à 06:37, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
[git commit e51c3e033564d84a687eea86832563197e8a9815]
In the NR section 'Footnotes in stand-alone text with automatic marks'
the following example is given.
```
\book {
\header { tagline = ##f }
\markup {
"A simple&
[git commit e51c3e033564d84a687eea86832563197e8a9815]
In the NR section 'Footnotes in stand-alone text with automatic marks'
the following example is given.
```
\book {
\header { tagline = ##f }
\markup {
"A simple"
\footnote "tune" \italic " B
t think it
makes sense to ban it into snippets, like we also don't ban any example
making use of "\once\override" instead of just "\override" into
snippets.
Yes, our manuals are too large, but I don't think that removing this
usage (which incidentally was originall
LGTM
I tried to make the text as concise as possible, so
it's quite expected that some expansion would be
required once someone tried to grasp this from scratch.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
h
coming from a 'not developer's' point of view.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1338
Documentation/notation/
https://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/19001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/19001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1332
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1332: direction \footnote
[@va
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/19001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/19001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1332
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1332: direction \footnot
On 2012/12/11 17:43:26, dak wrote:
At the time this text was written originally, grob-name was pretty
accurate.
But now we probably should call it something like "grob-spec" (or
whatever we
use for overrides) instead: if you want to put a footnote on a time
signature,
Good call. I'll modif
http://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/15001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1280
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1280: specifies a type of grob t
#newcode1240
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1240: Although notes inside a chord
do cause events, time-based footnotes
On 2012/12/10 15:43:47, dak wrote:
That is confusing: stems and flags are not events. I'd rather write
something
like:
"Exactly which of a chord's multiple note events
chord
do cause events, time-based footnotes
That is confusing: stems and flags are not events. I'd rather write
something like:
"Exactly which of a chord's multiple note events will be deemed the root
cause of a stem or flag is undefined. So for annotating those,
time-based footnotes
On 2012/11/22 12:42:04, Trevor Daniels wrote:
[...]
The Extending Manual is the place for explanations useful to
developers. Granted this is rather embryonic at present, due
mainly to a dearth of knowledgeable people willing to contribute
to it. It would benefit greatly from further input ;)
On 2012/11/22 11:39:30, thomasmorley65 wrote:
So I'd always vote for deeper explanations in an additional paragraph.
Might be
I have some sympathy with this view, but the primary purpose
of the Notation Reference is to tell users /how to engrave/
their music in as simple and straightforward wa
On 2012/11/22 11:04:00, Trevor Daniels wrote:
[...]
I might chop the explanations - users in
general don't need this level of understanding.
Well, in the past I sometimes was beaten by the not explained "why?" and
"how?" in the docs.
So I'd always vote for deeper explanations in an additiona
On 2012/11/22 11:04:00, Trevor Daniels wrote:
That's always the problem when you try to explain rather
than just showing what to do, especially with a messy
interface like this one.
Basically we got one interface now, with two essentially different
behaviors depending on whether the last argum
n error.}
On 2012/11/22 09:39:54, dak wrote:
This warning is extremely misleading since footnotes with a grob-name
are never
attached to anything in the music but rather to a moment of time.
@warning {If you use a grob specification, the footnote affects
everything at
the current time s
or.}
This warning is extremely misleading since footnotes with a grob-name
are never attached to anything in the music but rather to a moment of
time.
@warning {If you use a grob specification, the footnote affects
everything at the current time step like @code{\once \override} would.
Just like an
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:18:54PM +0100, James wrote:
> On 31 August 2012 22:35, John Mandereau wrote:
> > I can change Patchy so that it compresses the show-XXX tree in a xz
> > file, send it to Grenouille via SFTP,
would it be possible to do this over rsync, to allow resuming a
broken connecti
John,
On 31 August 2012 22:35, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 31/08/2012 alle 18.43 +0100, James ha scritto:
>> I'll need to double check remember that I post links to zipped files.
>> I never checked the size of the show- regtest dir that gets
>> created. That might be larger althoug
Il giorno ven, 31/08/2012 alle 18.43 +0100, James ha scritto:
> I'll need to double check remember that I post links to zipped files.
> I never checked the size of the show- regtest dir that gets
> created. That might be larger although I cannot imagine that png files
> compress that much more
Hello,
On 31 August 2012 14:09, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:54:11PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
>> Il giorno ven, 31/08/2012 alle 13.21 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
>> > People like James can build new test results quite quickly,
>> > have them automatically uploade
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:54:11PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 31/08/2012 alle 13.21 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> > People like James can build new test results quite quickly,
> > have them automatically uploaded to Grenouille, and Grenouille
> > can then server them to re
Il giorno ven, 31/08/2012 alle 13.21 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> That sounds good to me! If we treat Grenouille more like a web
> server than a workhorse, then I think it'll go smoother.
I would have preferred a workhorse, but in its current state it has
proven to be not so well usable a
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:04:12PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 12.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> > Failing that, any other developer could set
> > patch-new to trigger a new test if the discussion suggests that
> > the previous test results are not correct
Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 12.52 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:38:51AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> > every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.
>
> That's definitely overkill! What if I post a comment saying "yes,
> this patch d
Am 30.08.2012 18:10, schrieb Trevor Daniels:
John Mandereau wrote Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:38 AM
There's a non negligible number of old issues with Patch=needs-work:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=Patch=needs_work&sort=-modified&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Ow
John Mandereau wrote Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:17 AM
> Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 08.57 +0100, Trevor Daniels ha scritto:
>> I don't think the patch for this issue should have been tested.
>> It has been marked 'patch-needs-work' since 29 May.
>
> It should have been marked Patch-abandone
John Mandereau wrote Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:38 AM
> There's a non negligible number of old issues with Patch=needs-work:
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=Patch=needs_work&sort=-modified&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary%20Modified
>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:38:51AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.
That's definitely overkill! What if I post a comment saying "yes,
this patch definitely looks bad"?
> IMHO all issues that have not changed since 2 months and
Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 09.54 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> There's no script. Colin Campbell occasionally does it manually.
There's a non negligible number of old issues with Patch=needs-work:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=Patch=needs_work&sort=-modified&col
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:17:26AM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 08.57 +0100, Trevor Daniels ha scritto:
> > I don't think the patch for this issue should have been tested.
> > It has been marked 'patch-needs-work' since 29 May.
>
> It should have been marked Patch-
Il giorno gio, 30/08/2012 alle 08.57 +0100, Trevor Daniels ha scritto:
> I don't think the patch for this issue should have been tested.
> It has been marked 'patch-needs-work' since 29 May.
It should have been marked Patch-abandoned then (BTW isn't there an
script that is supposed to automate thi
tion of
making footnotes work via tweak.
>
> Comment #11 on issue 2547 by grenoui...@lilynet.net: Fix documentation of
> making footnotes work via tweak.
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2547#c11
>
> Build results are available at
>
> http://grenoui
http://codereview.appspot.com/6306064/diff/7001/lily/system.cc
File lily/system.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6306064/diff/7001/lily/system.cc#newcode285
lily/system.cc:285: TODO
Ugh. At least the comment now mentions that something is likely rotten
elsewhere.
Thanks!
http://coder
On 2012/06/10 16:22:25, MikeSol wrote:
It's worth mentioning in the change log and perhaps a convert-ly
NOT_SMART rule.
The change log describes changes relative to the last stable release. A
release which did not even have footnotes. If we wanted to put
something in the chang
http://codereview.appspot.com/6306064/diff/1/input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly
File input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6306064/diff/1/input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly#newcode21
input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.l
the Score level).
I'll readily admit that the footnote engraver being at Score level may
be a
source for new problems. However, automatic footnotes get a number
for each
time they hit an engraver, and footnotes may occur at pretty much any
level. So
I don't really see a wa
t the footnote engraver being at Score level may
be a source for new problems. However, automatic footnotes get a number
for each time they hit an engraver, and footnotes may occur at pretty
much any level. So I don't really see a way around having the engraver
registered at Score level by defaul
Reviewers: ,
Message:
This fixes Issue 2574 but also deals with the footnote-break-visibility
regtest, which currently does not register the property change (this may
have something to do with the footnote engraver being on the Score
level).
Cheers,
MS
Description:
Footnotes correctly printed
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 8:48 AM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
>
>> Given the level and amount of code you write, it might be worth
>> investing the time rereading the garbage collection chapter of the Guile
>> manual.
>>
>
> You're right that I know nothing about guile's garb
On Mar 7, 2012, at 8:48 AM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
> Given the level and amount of code you write, it might be worth
> investing the time rereading the garbage collection chapter of the Guile
> manual.
>
You're right that I know nothing about guile's garbage collection...it'd help
to know this. I
http://codereview.appspot.com/5755058/diff/1/lily/page-layout-problem.cc
File lily/page-layout-problem.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5755058/diff/1/lily/page-layout-problem.cc#newcode343
lily/page-layout-problem.cc:343: return footnote_separator;
Uh, Mike?
You call a Scheme function
If you say that add_footnotes_to_footer
can deal with getting a null stencil for starters, that's what I would
prefer using. Incidentally, the length of the axes of a null stencil
should turn out to be 0, so this would remove a few special cases as
well.
Description:
Issue 2376: Automatic footnotes on \null marku
http://codereview.appspot.com/5755058/diff/1/lily/page-breaking.cc
File lily/page-breaking.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5755058/diff/1/lily/page-breaking.cc#newcode584
lily/page-breaking.cc:584: }
Just a C++ question - do these lines implicitly call the copy
constructor to create fo
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:21:30PM +0100, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> Using today's git LilyPond, the following snippet gives weird results:
Thanks for the report, Nicolas, but 2.15.32 is not yet released so I can't
accept this bug report.
Forwarding to the developer list.
Cheers,
Colin.
--
Co
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5543064/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
:
On 2011/11/25 04:48:04, MikeSol wrote:
footnotes (plural)
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433064/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1071
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1071: @emph{after} the note that the
footnote is being attached to and
On 2011/11/25 04:48:04, MikeSol
Passes make and make check
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433065/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433064/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM, but a couple of minor comments.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433065/diff/1/scm/define-grob-interfaces.scm
File scm/define-grob-interfaces.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433065/diff/1/scm/define-grob-interfaces.scm#newcode88
scm/define-grob-interfaces.scm:88: numbering-asser
Passes make and make check
James
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433065/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433064/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5433064/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1038
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1038:
footnotes (plural)
http
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Hey all,
This patch helps make sure that the footnote auto-number regtests
actually test what they purport to be testing by allowing a callback to
check if footnote grobs are receiving the correct automatic number.
Cheers,
MS
Description:
Asserts that footnotes are being
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Second go at documenting footnotes. I have also included notes about the
recent checkin (height ordering of footnotes
in a system determining the order they are printed).
Description:
Doc: NR Added new node for Custom Footnotes
This is for Tracker issue 1567
Please
Having a rethink on this section, after Graham's comments.
Currently trying to simplify some of the examples and explanations. Also
need to include the \markup function \auto-footnote as well. I'll close
the Reitveld and open a new one when I'm done (hopefully in the next day
or so).
James
http
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> I guess because we are not indicating a grob i.e.
>
> c-\autoFootnote #'(1 . -1.25)
>
> vs
>
> \autoFootnote #'NoteHead #'(1 . -1.25)
> c4
>
> Which does the same thing.
>
> Mike any comment on this?
>
>
On Nov 4, 2011, at 4:10 PM, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
> This still needs work but I need some decisions err.. decided and some
> more input from Mike.
>
> James
>
Sorry for the delay! I missed this e-mail.
>>
>
> I guess because we are not indicating a grob i.e.
>
> c-\autoFootnote #'(1 . -
/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1032
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1032: Automatic footnotes create
default superscript numbers which flag the
On 2011/11/02 08:17:42, Graham Percival wrote:
Is the term "flag" often used to refer to footnote numbers?
Actually there is no consensus on
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:34:12AM +, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So that's my reasoning. But the question "why didn't Mike..." should be
> addressed to Han-Wen: as he was the one who created it, he may have
> answers that I don't.
ok, good answer.
- Graham
\markup { \auto-footnote a b }
Oh. \auto-footnote is a markup command. I haven't got my claws into
those yet regarding optional arguments.
I suppose I have to take a closer look before suggesting things.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/
___
On 2011/11/02 06:10:38, J_lowe wrote:
4th Draft. Thanks Graham.
@Mike Solomon:
I'd still like an example on how to autofootnote top-level markup if
you can, so
I can remove that technically inaccurate statement.
Just in case you missed it, I'd like to use the same example as I use
for
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1049
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1049: @qq{bottom left} and @qq{t
Oh, by the way, I suggest that you wait for Issue 2003 to go through
before investing too much effort in documenting your interfaces. Then
you don't need a separate interface for "manual" and "automatic"
footnotes, but can just use something like \footnote\default for
a
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1032
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1032: Automatic footnotes
e it not below
as might be expected - if we're having to use \book (because we need to
use 'papersize=', might as well use tagline.
and why do you want the copyright symbol? does that seriously aid in
demonstrating how footnotes work?
I guess not, it's just if I am using
opyright" \char ##x00A9 "1970" } }
why do you want the tagline visible here? and why do you want the
copyright symbol? does that seriously aid in demonstrating how
footnotes work?
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1101
Documenta
/input.itely:1020: There are two types of
footnotes that can be used; automatic footnotes
On 2011/10/27 01:56:26, Graham Percival wrote:
people don't read stuff in @subsection in html. Move this into
@unnumbered
Footnote overview
Done. I hope this was what you meant.
http://codereview.appspo
footnotes that can be used; automatic footnotes
people don't read stuff in @subsection in html. Move this into
@unnumbered Footnote overview
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1064
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1064: \autoFootnoteGrob #
second draft
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1025
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1025: All grobs, top-level
Thanks for your work on this James!
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1025
Documentation/notation/inp
Reviewers: ,
Message:
There are a few non-standard indents to show more clearly the footnote
syntax in the @lilypond examples.
Description:
Doc: NR Added new node for Custom Footnotes
This is for Tracker issue 1567
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5315053/
Affected files
On Aug 28, 2011, at 12:44 PM, pkx1...@gmail.com wrote:
> passes make and reg tests.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4837047/
Pushed as 181366ec566a338c265ff4960724202d0d55ef79.
Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http
passes make and reg tests.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4837047/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
That's exactly as I envisioned it. Numbering works fine, except in staff
systems. the example that I sent a while ago still has some apparently
random order of the numbering.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4837047/diff/1017/lily/page-layout-problem.cc
File lily/page-layout-problem.cc (right):
ht
On 2011/08/01 21:59:06, MikeSol wrote:
From Reinhold's suggestion.
Cheers,
MS
Most recent version passed regtests before the C++ formatting changes.
I've copied and pasted them, so this should pass as well. I'll run a
full set tomorrow.
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4837047/
Reviewers: ,
Message:
From Reinhold's suggestion.
Cheers,
MS
Description:
Lets auto numbering of footnotes kick in from commands alone.
Gets rid of footnote-auto-numbering in the paper block.
For now, numbers that are not used are skiped.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspo
Not a prob, Neil. Pushed as 4ed502a165b3c9a1a65b4632b1e6db91c9655848.
I'll try to get a patch up for the footer problem before I go to bed.
Cheers,
MS
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:50 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2011/07/31 10:46:54, MikeSol wrote:
>
>> Sorry for having missed them before, Neil
On 2011/07/31 10:46:54, MikeSol wrote:
Sorry for having missed them before, Neil!
Thanks for sorting these.
BTW, you'll probably be interested in this post from lilypond-user-fr:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user-fr/2011-07/msg00127.html
It looks like we need a check to ensure
On 2011/07/31 10:46:54, MikeSol wrote:
Hey all,
These incorporate several comments from Neil regarding automatic
footnotes.
Sorry for having missed them before, Neil!
Cheers,
MS
Forgot to mention that this passes regtests.
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4798063
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Hey all,
These incorporate several comments from Neil regarding automatic
footnotes. Sorry for having missed them before, Neil!
Cheers,
MS
Description:
Incorporates suggestions from Neil into footnotes.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/4798063
On 2011/07/29 11:35:55, J_lowe wrote:
Mike's new addition to footnotes doesn't affect this patch so I would
like to
get this pushed and when Mike comes back with more explanation for his
newer
patch which will then take more reviewing I can update the
documentation with
the addi
On 28 July 2011 15:57, wrote:
> Many thanks to everyone for their help on this.
>
> Pushed as 233aad0ba9781e43424c4e77a859e42b660210e6.
Hi Mike, can you look at my comments from a month ago please? I
believe some of them are still relevant.
Thanks,
Neil
___
Mike's new addition to footnotes doesn't affect this patch so I would
like to get this pushed and when Mike comes back with more explanation
for his newer patch which will then take more reviewing I can update the
documentation with the additions than hold this b
note from Mike
--snip--
I just pushed a patch for automatic footnotes. Everything you need to
know about them exists in the two new regtests
(233aad0ba9781e43424c4e77a859e42b660210e6). The most important thing to
note is that, if people want to use non-automatic footnotes, they must
now add
Many thanks to everyone for their help on this.
Pushed as 233aad0ba9781e43424c4e77a859e42b660210e6.
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4580041/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypo
2011/7/24 James Lowe :
> I'm wondering now what the *real* difference between the two are, other than
> \footnote[Grob] lets you add a footnote to a balloon text - albeit without
> the 'balloon'.
Perhaps i'm not understanding something, but isn't the primary
On Jul 24, 2011, at 7:01 PM, James Lowe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry to seem to be obsessing about 'footnotes', it's just that when one does
> start to look at all the nuances of a new function to make clear
> documentation, one's focus does become a bit tun
er be in more than one at once?
There are several engravers which exist in multiple contexts (e.g.,
Parenthesis_engraver). I haven't checked, but it seems to me that
adding the Footnote_engraver to the Staff context should be harmless
for Voice-level footnotes.
This has been added as an
Hello,
Sorry to seem to be obsessing about 'footnotes', it's just that when one does
start to look at all the nuances of a new function to make clear documentation,
one's focus does become a bit tunnel-vision-like.
Looking at NR 1.7.2 (Balloon Text) and my
On 18 July 2011 22:00, wrote:
> Ok I tried
>
> \relative c' {
> >
>> 1 } for myself and it works but I get two indicators and two footnotes
>
> on each note inside the chord. So is this a special case? If so then I
> can add a snippet or another @li
other a \balloon-style music function. The
latter is
the only way to add a footnote to an individual notehead in a chord,
e.g.,
\relative c' {
1
}
Ok I tried
\relative c' {
1 } for myself and it works but I get two indicators and two footnotes
on each note inside the chord. So
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1038
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1038: where the @code{\markup
@{in
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1105
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1105:
A way to make them not colli
ak-visibility.ly
File Documentation/snippets/new/footnote-break-visibility.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/8001/Documentation/snippets/new/footnote-break-visibility.ly#newcode5
Documentation/snippets/new/footnote-break-visibility.ly:5: Footnotes
attached to grobs that have t
LGTM. Maybe wait a day for Trevor to comment, then push.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Third Draft
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1016
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1016: @funindex \foot
On 2011/07/16 21:06:34, Graham Percival wrote:
you need to do
git add Documentation/snippets/new/*.ly
git commit Documentation/snippets/new/
to get your new files included in this commit.
no wait, sorry, ignore that. My eyes (and the sorting order in
rietveld) mislead me.
http://codere
you need to do
git add Documentation/snippets/new/*.ly
git commit Documentation/snippets/new/
to get your new files included in this commit.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.
Reviewers: Graham Percival,
Message:
On 2011/07/16 20:41:43, Graham Percival wrote:
could you do a git pull, and then make a new commit for this? I've
run
makelsr.py locally.
Done. Second draft attached. Thanks.
Description:
Doc: NR Added new Node for Footnotes
This is for Trackr
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
