Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[pkx166h]

On 2012/01/11 06:57:48, dak wrote:

On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
 There are some duplications in the docs now.
 (LBTM?)



The notation manual has not been revised yet.



Since I am currently doing the convert-ly rules for juggling the

argument order

and this will, obviously, also affect the manual both with respect to
autoconversion as well as text sense, I am saving this for later.  Of

course,

I'll be happy if someone else does the work on the NR, though of

course the

Scheme function documentation itself should match the code right away.


I've created

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2213 so I'll work on
the NR as I did all the \footnote Doc in the first place.

I am assuming you still have to include your documentation edits in the
patch so that the docs compile?

Otherwise we will have a bit of a disconnect with the code and
documentation until I push my patch. I'll try to get this done asap.

On a 'merging' note, should I take the diff file from this tracker for
the input.itely and use that as my base so that I don't end up with
'unable to apply' patch type messages on myside if I work from the
*itely as it is in master?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

On 2012/01/11 11:45:19, J_lowe wrote:

I've created



http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2213 so I'll work

on the NR as I did all the \footnote Doc in the first place.


I am assuming you still have to include your documentation edits in

the patch so that the docs compile?

Nope, the last batch of running convert-ly appears to cover this.

The documentation compiles, it just talks nonsense in the text.


On a 'merging' note, should I take the diff file from this tracker for

the input.itely and use that as my base so that I don't end up with
'unable to apply' patch type messages on myside if I work from the
*itely as it is in master?

Since I don't expect significant changes anymore, this sounds
reasonable.  If you wanted to be safer than that, your patch would have
to be sorted into the series _before_ running update-with-convert-ly.
But I would prefer doing the two steps in this review as a single
commit, and if we bounce the doc changes between our private
repositories, this will just complicate matters.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[Janek Warchoł]

2012/1/11  d...@gnu.org:
 On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:

 There are some duplications in the docs now.
 (LBTM?)


 The notation manual has not been revised yet.

Ok, i misunderstood.  Sorry.

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

Reviewers: J_lowe, carl.d.sorensen_gmail.com, lemzwerg, MikeSol,

Message:
On 2012/01/10 06:29:57, lemzwerg wrote:

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py
File python/convertrules.py (right):



http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py#newcode3362

python/convertrules.py:3362:
 From an orthogonal point of view, those variables should be either

named

`matchstring' and `matcharg' or `matchastring' and `matchanarg'...

It's not

really important, but I prefer the former.


So would I, but then I did not remember whether I would be impeding on
Python's namespace.  I would have to check.

Description:
Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and
\autoFootnoteGrob

and

Run scripts/auxiliar/update-with-convert-ly.sh

Since most of the changes are done by convert-ly, reviewable changes are
confined to ly/music-functions-init.ly and python/convertrules.py.

The notation manual has not been revised yet.

Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

Affected files:
  M Documentation/es/notation/input.itely
  M Documentation/fr/notation/input.itely
  M Documentation/notation/input.itely
  M input/regression/footnote-auto-numbering-page-reset.ly
  M input/regression/footnote-auto-numbering-vertical-order.ly
  M input/regression/footnote-auto-numbering.ly
  M input/regression/footnote-break-visibility.ly
  M input/regression/footnote-footer-padding.ly
  M input/regression/footnote-spanner.ly
  M input/regression/footnote.ly
  M input/regression/in-note.ly
  M ly/music-functions-init.ly
  M python/convertrules.py



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

On 2012/01/09 20:42:30, J_lowe wrote:

Does this do anything to the
\auto-footnote



command as well?


No.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

On 2012/01/10 07:08:29, MikeSol wrote:

LGTM.  Good work!



The only think I'd ask is that you change the markup syntax before

pushing the

patch.  I think that, if the distinction between footnote and

auto-footnote is

going to be eliminated, it needs to be categorical.


Optional arguments are not implemented for markup functions, so no can
do.  It is an obvious contender once they are.  As a stopgap measure,
one might think about using ##f or something to that effect instead of
\default.  autoFootnote and auto-footnote have been different before, so
I don't consider it really urgent to squeeze this in while markup
functions have not received the treatment.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[reinhold . kainhofer]

LGTM.

From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
But then, one can always define one's own music function that takes care
of that. So no objection from my side.


http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1141
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1141: @funindex \footnote
Remove duplicate...

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:

LGTM.



 From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default

for

auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...


It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either).  One
might consider moving the footnote mark argument to last position, but
the footnote text is potentially long, and so it better comes last so
that one is not surprised at what follows afterwards.

There are too many arguments either way for comfort.  But I think that
making this comparable to \mark is sensible.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

On 2012/01/10 13:18:03, dak wrote:

On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
 LGTM.

 From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default

for

 auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...



It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either).  One

might

consider moving the footnote mark argument to last position


Actually, one could juggle the order of arguments around such that the
optional arguments can't be confused with the next argument.  Like
putting the footnote mark first, position next, Grob spec next, footnote
text last.  In that manner, you could leave off either Grob spec or
footnote mark without needing to say \default.  And even if one writes
\default for autonumbering, having it directly after the command will
look more like \mark.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[mike]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:28:46 +, d...@gnu.org wrote:

On 2012/01/10 13:18:03, dak wrote:

On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
 LGTM.

 From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use 
\default

for

 auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...



It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either).  One

might

consider moving the footnote mark argument to last position


Actually, one could juggle the order of arguments around such that 
the

optional arguments can't be confused with the next argument.  Like
putting the footnote mark first, position next, Grob spec next, 
footnote

text last.  In that manner, you could leave off either Grob spec or
footnote mark without needing to say \default.  And even if one 
writes

\default for autonumbering, having it directly after the command will
look more like \mark.



This is a good idea - I should have done it this way from the get-go, 
but I had no clue about the whats/whys/wheres of \default.


Is there any chance that this type of change could be written as a 
smart convert-ly rule?  Assuming that people don't use # for purposes 
other than indicating Scheme arguments in their footnote making, 
scanning a string for # should show where the arguments are and then 
they can be swapped around.


Cheers,
MS

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[David Kastrup]

m...@apollinemike.com writes:

 Actually, one could juggle the order of arguments around such that
 the optional arguments can't be confused with the next argument.
 Like putting the footnote mark first, position next, Grob spec next,
 footnote text last.  In that manner, you could leave off either Grob
 spec or footnote mark without needing to say \default.  And even if
 one writes \default for autonumbering, having it directly after the
 command will look more like \mark.


 This is a good idea - I should have done it this way from the get-go,
 but I had no clue about the whats/whys/wheres of \default.

 Is there any chance that this type of change could be written as a
 smart convert-ly rule?  Assuming that people don't use # for purposes
 other than indicating Scheme arguments in their footnote making,
 scanning a string for # should show where the arguments are and then
 they can be swapped around.

Well, scanning for \markup ... will be quite more of a challenge.
Another problem I see is coordinating the change with the equally-named
\footnote markup command.  I have to see how that is defined.

On the plus side, most user files will likely be using \autoFootnote.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:

 Well, scanning for \markup ... will be quite more of a challenge.
 Another problem I see is coordinating the change with the equally-named
 \footnote markup command.  I have to see how that is defined.

 On the plus side, most user files will likely be using \autoFootnote.

I have just looked at the definitions of the \footnote and
\auto-footnote markups.  They are a total mess in discord with their
documentation, so it is not all that likely that users have been using
them much.

(define-markup-command (footnote layout props mkup note)
  (markup? markup?)
  #:category other
  Have footnote @var{note} act as an annotation to the markup @var{mkup}.

@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\\markup {
  \\auto-footnote a b
  \\override #'(padding . 0.2)
  \\auto-footnote c d
}
@end lilypond
The footnote will not be annotated automatically.

The footnote called with \auto-footnote will not be annotated automatically?

(define-markup-command (auto-footnote layout props mkup note)
  (markup? markup?)
  #:category other
  #:properties ((raise 0.5)
(padding 0.0))
  Have footnote @var{note} act as an annotation to the markup @var{mkup}.

@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\\markup {
  \\auto-footnote a b
  \\override #'(padding . 0.2)
  \\auto-footnote c d
}
@end lilypond
The footnote will be annotated automatically.
  (let* ((markup-stencil (interpret-markup layout props mkup))
 (auto-numbering (ly:output-def-lookup layout
   'footnote-auto-numbering))

What's that?  auto-numbering will only be active if
footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout?  Which it isn't by
default?  And where there is no documentation around explaining how and
why you should do that?

It is a rather safe bet the only user of that functionality goes by a
first name of Mike.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[m...@apollinemike.com]

On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
 
 Well, scanning for \markup ... will be quite more of a challenge.
 Another problem I see is coordinating the change with the equally-named
 \footnote markup command.  I have to see how that is defined.
 
 On the plus side, most user files will likely be using \autoFootnote.
 
 I have just looked at the definitions of the \footnote and
 \auto-footnote markups.  They are a total mess in discord with their
 documentation, so it is not all that likely that users have been using
 them much.
 
(define-markup-command (footnote layout props mkup note)
  (markup? markup?)
  #:category other
  Have footnote @var{note} act as an annotation to the markup @var{mkup}.
 
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\\markup {
  \\auto-footnote a b
  \\override #'(padding . 0.2)
  \\auto-footnote c d
}
@end lilypond
The footnote will not be annotated automatically.
 
 The footnote called with \auto-footnote will not be annotated automatically?
 
(define-markup-command (auto-footnote layout props mkup note)
  (markup? markup?)
  #:category other
  #:properties ((raise 0.5)
(padding 0.0))
  Have footnote @var{note} act as an annotation to the markup @var{mkup}.
 
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\\markup {
  \\auto-footnote a b
  \\override #'(padding . 0.2)
  \\auto-footnote c d
}
@end lilypond
The footnote will be annotated automatically.
  (let* ((markup-stencil (interpret-markup layout props mkup))
 (auto-numbering (ly:output-def-lookup layout
   'footnote-auto-numbering))
 
 What's that?  auto-numbering will only be active if
 footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout?  Which it isn't by
 default?  And where there is no documentation around explaining how and
 why you should do that?



Several typos are in here.  \auto-footnote does work automatically, and 
footnote-auto-numbering no longer exists (I forgot to remove this when I forgot 
to remove a similar statement in the other doc string).

Cheers,
MS
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[David Kastrup]

m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com writes:

 On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

 What's that?  auto-numbering will only be active if
 footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout?  Which it isn't by
 default?  And where there is no documentation around explaining how and
 why you should do that?



 Several typos are in here.  \auto-footnote does work automatically,
 and footnote-auto-numbering no longer exists (I forgot to remove this
 when I forgot to remove a similar statement in the other doc string).

footnote-auto-numbering is present in the _code_.  This is not just a
question of the doc string.  There _is_ user-level documentation in the
notation manual (as a warning) mentioning, something like one has to set
it to ##f if one wants to be using non-auto footnumbers.

I consider it unlikely that footnotes in markup have been used all that
much, given the incoherent state of both documentation as well as the
code itself.  So I am not worried all that much if convert-ly can't deal
with markup footnotes nicely.  It does not look like LilyPond itself can
deal with markup footnotes all that nicely.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[m...@apollinemike.com]

On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

 m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com writes:
 
 On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
 
 What's that?  auto-numbering will only be active if
 footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout?  Which it isn't by
 default?  And where there is no documentation around explaining how and
 why you should do that?
 
 
 
 Several typos are in here.  \auto-footnote does work automatically,
 and footnote-auto-numbering no longer exists (I forgot to remove this
 when I forgot to remove a similar statement in the other doc string).
 
 footnote-auto-numbering is present in the _code_.  This is not just a
 question of the doc string.  There _is_ user-level documentation in the
 notation manual (as a warning) mentioning, something like one has to set
 it to ##f if one wants to be using non-auto footnumbers.

I just pushed a fix to staging that gets rid of this - the lookup was useless, 
as the auto-numbering variable in this file always returned true.

Cheers,
MS


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[David Kastrup]

m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com writes:

 On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

 footnote-auto-numbering is present in the _code_.  This is not just a
 question of the doc string.  There _is_ user-level documentation in
 the notation manual (as a warning) mentioning, something like one has
 to set it to ##f if one wants to be using non-auto footnumbers.

 I just pushed a fix to staging that gets rid of this - the lookup was
 useless, as the auto-numbering variable in this file always returned
 true.

Well, this was not really intended as a bug report, more as a if my
not-yet-finished convert-ly rule will wreak awful havoc on \footnote
within markup, I don't consider this a showstopper notice.  Of course,
once you fix the really glaring problems with documentation and code,
this reasoning will get old soon.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[janek . lilypond]

There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)


http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1053
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1053: The command
@code{\autoFootnoteGrob} must come @emph{before} the grob
Shouldn't @code{\autoFootnoteGrob} be changed to @code{\footnote}, with
a mention of \default too?

Similar below

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1070
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1070: To annotate chorded notes, the
@code{\autoFootnote} must come
Shouldn't @code{\autoFootnote} be changed to @code{\footnote}, with a
mention of \default too?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1146
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1146: for individual grobs (and
@code{\markup} when using @code{TextScripts}).
there are 2 commands, \footnote and \footnote...

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[dak]

On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:

There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)


The notation manual has not been revised yet.

Since I am currently doing the convert-ly rules for juggling the
argument order and this will, obviously, also affect the manual both
with respect to autoconversion as well as text sense, I am saving this
for later.  Of course, I'll be happy if someone else does the work on
the NR, though of course the Scheme function documentation itself should
match the code right away.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[pkx166h]

Does this do anything to the
\auto-footnote

command as well?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[Carl . D . Sorensen]

Looks *very* good to me!

I really like having only one \footnote command; it's intuitive for
users.  Thanks for doing this!


http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[James]

On 9 January 2012 20:49,  carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
 Looks *very* good to me!

 I really like having only one \footnote command; it's intuitive for
 users.  Thanks for doing this!

On the shoulders of Giants eh David ;)

I can help with the doc if you like, perhaps download the diff file
from the tracker, apply it and give it back for you to apply on your
patch?


-- 
--

James

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[lemzwerg]

Thanks, David!

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[lemzwerg]

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py
File python/convertrules.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py#newcode3362
python/convertrules.py:3362:
From an orthogonal point of view, those variables should be either named
`matchstring' and `matcharg' or `matchastring' and `matchanarg'...  It's
not really important, but I prefer the former.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and \autoFootnoteGrob (issue 5527058)

[mtsolo]

LGTM.  Good work!

The only think I'd ask is that you change the markup syntax before
pushing the patch.  I think that, if the distinction between footnote
and auto-footnote is going to be eliminated, it needs to be categorical.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel