Federico Bruni <[email protected]> writes: > Il 02/01/2013 10:33, David Kastrup ha scritto: >>>> In the light of the above example working just fine, could you explain >>>> >> how one should have written the NR so that you would have been able to >>>> >> achieve what you wanted? >>>> >> >>> > >>> > A simple warning saying that \footnote must be used inside a chord >>> > construct would have helped. I wouldn't give it for granted. >> Exactly this has been said in the passage you quoted above: >> >>>>> >>> Marking an entire chord in this manner is not possible since a chord >>>>> >>> does not produce an event separate from that of its chord >>>>> >>> constituents, but the constituents themselves can be marked. >> Since you repeat your complaint after quoting the text, and even after >> we had this brief discussion (which a reader of the manual will_not_ >> have at his disposal), it is obvious that this passage has been written >> in a manner that fails to make readers realize its actual meaning. >> > > What is confusing in this passage is what "constituent" means. > Does it refer to the notes of a chord or to each element of a chord > (accidental and stem included)?
It's actually notes in the chord as well as per-chord articulations. But in this context, omitting mention of the latter would probably not be problematic. > That's why I was caused to think that grob-name was required to attach > a footnote to a note inside a chord. > > I think that this should be explained separately and earlier. I'll try proposing a patch along these lines. > I'm sorry, I don't understand well the topic and I'm not good at > writing documentation. Hope it makes sense and can help someone who > can write good documentation. That would not include me. But maybe I'll get by with a little help from my friends. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
