Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am currently rewriting footnote documentation, and I got the somewhat >> embarrassing screenshot >> >> >> >> It would appear that the dimensions of the Beam grob are located at the >> note where LilyPond _decides_ where to end the beam, not where the beam >> then actually ends. >> >> Anybody have a suggestion what might be at work here? For what it is >> worth, this should pretty much be the behavior of the old >> \footnoteAutoGrob or whatever else it was called, too. > > As you may know the auto beaming is weird, because it has to emit a > Beam after the real end point has already passed. However, wouldnt it > be easier to simply use manual beams in the example? Putting a > footnote on something automatically generated sounds like a bad > practice, since it stops making sense when you alter the autobeaming > rules.
Well, the point _was_ placing a footnote on an automatically generated beam as an _indirectly_ created grob. It would appear that I might better look for grobs better suited as example. Caught me off-guard, however. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
