Re: Footnote documentation error
Hi bug-squad, On 22/04/12 06:39, James wrote: Hello, On 22 April 2012 04:12, Mark Mathias d8val...@gmail.com wrote: So... as far as the Bug Squad is concerned, are we still waiting for something or does this need to get added to the tracker? Thanks, Mark As far as the bug squad are concerned - being one myself - we'd like a confirmation that this is a documentation error or an unexpected/inconsistent behaviour in the code. I haven't seen a case for either yet. Or do you have enough information for determining it as a case of TTWIW (that's the way it works) and answering this as Invalid? Ian ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Footnote documentation error
So... as far as the Bug Squad is concerned, are we still waiting for something or does this need to get added to the tracker? Thanks, Mark On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:52 AM, m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:40 AM, James wrote: Hello, On 20 April 2012 00:40, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: The documentation at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotesfor both automatic and manual footnotes says that the \footnote command must come *before* the grob to which the footnote is being attached. This doesn't seem to be the case. Here the \footnote commands are after the notes to which they are attached, and they work fine: I think this was to do with David's additional work on Mike's a few months ago when what he did changed the requirement from the original footnote document in earlier versions of 2.15. We did re-write much of the examples and obviously missed this. I actually think this has something to do with David's work on the parser (could be wrong...). This is the postfix variety of footnote, or the one that does not need to specify a grob and assigns the footnote to whatever grob is created by the first event that comes down the pipe. I'm actually amazed that it works, as the NoteHead is facultative - if you replaced it w/ Stem it'd do the same thing (meaning footnote the NoteHead). Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-u...@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Footnote documentation error
Hello, On 22 April 2012 04:12, Mark Mathias d8val...@gmail.com wrote: So... as far as the Bug Squad is concerned, are we still waiting for something or does this need to get added to the tracker? Thanks, Mark As far as the bug squad are concerned - being one myself - we'd like a confirmation that this is a documentation error or an unexpected/inconsistent behaviour in the code. I haven't seen a case for either yet. james ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Footnote documentation error
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes: Hello, On 20 April 2012 00:40, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: The documentation at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes for both automatic and manual footnotes says that the \footnote command must come *before* the grob to which the footnote is being attached. This doesn't seem to be the case. Here the \footnote commands are after the notes to which they are attached, and they work fine: I think this was to do with David's additional work on Mike's a few months ago when what he did changed the requirement from the original footnote document in earlier versions of 2.15. We did re-write much of the examples and obviously missed this. Before I create a tracker, I'll wait for a confirmation from David/Mike that this is technically correct. Well, I basically just changed the DOC strings from something that did not make sense at all (Use this like \tweak or so) to something that actually made a bit of sense and was somewhat related to the original text. I think I repeatedly stated that I had no clue whether the new text was correct, but at least it was clear enough that people could read it and complain if it was wrong, something which the previous text was not really making possible, being total handwaving. Variants of the previous texts are still in the DOC strings for balloon helps. Since I did not touch the _code_ of those _and_ I don't have a clue about how they are supposed to work, I did not correct the DOC strings there. For the footnotes, I pulled the preexisting interfaces into one new interface, and I _had_ to write a DOC string there. I know that the new interface does the job of the various old interfaces, and have been able to write nice convert-ly rules for them in consequence. But it was impossible to guess from the old DOC strings (Mike basically said oh, I just copied them over from the balloon help) what the old footnote macros did. I still had to write a new DOC string. Most certainly somebody actually _using_ those functions should proofread them. That's what our reviews are for. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Footnote documentation error
Hello, On 20 April 2012 00:40, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: The documentation at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes for both automatic and manual footnotes says that the \footnote command must come *before* the grob to which the footnote is being attached. This doesn't seem to be the case. Here the \footnote commands are after the notes to which they are attached, and they work fine: I think this was to do with David's additional work on Mike's a few months ago when what he did changed the requirement from the original footnote document in earlier versions of 2.15. We did re-write much of the examples and obviously missed this. Before I create a tracker, I'll wait for a confirmation from David/Mike that this is technically correct. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Footnote documentation error
On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:40 AM, James wrote: Hello, On 20 April 2012 00:40, Nick Payne nick.pa...@internode.on.net wrote: The documentation at http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes for both automatic and manual footnotes says that the \footnote command must come *before* the grob to which the footnote is being attached. This doesn't seem to be the case. Here the \footnote commands are after the notes to which they are attached, and they work fine: I think this was to do with David's additional work on Mike's a few months ago when what he did changed the requirement from the original footnote document in earlier versions of 2.15. We did re-write much of the examples and obviously missed this. I actually think this has something to do with David's work on the parser (could be wrong...). This is the postfix variety of footnote, or the one that does not need to specify a grob and assigns the footnote to whatever grob is created by the first event that comes down the pipe. I'm actually amazed that it works, as the NoteHead is facultative - if you replaced it w/ Stem it'd do the same thing (meaning footnote the NoteHead). Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
