Am 03.07.2016 um 14:48 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
> On 03.07.2016 03:34, Jeffery Shivers wrote:
>> I'd appreciate any thoughts on the following syntax for implementing
>> footnotes with annotations:
>>
>> \criticalRemark \with {
>> message = "my annotation"
>> } #'(1 . 2) "my footnote" Slur a4_\the-footnote-hook ( ...
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> \criticalRemark \with {
>> message = "my annotation"
>> footnote-offset = #'(1 . 2)
>> footnote-text = "my footnote"
>> } Slur a4_\the-footnote-hook ( ...
>
> The first is less keystrokes, but the second makes the code so much
> easier to read, that I prefer it. The keystrokes might be reduced by
> autocompletion in the editor.
>
>>
>> vs. either of the above *without* the need for the footnote hook at
>> all. I'm not totally sure how easy/possible it would be to automate
>> the footnote by the presence of offset/text arguments, but I
>> certainly think it would be work trying. Of course, I can see why
>> taking away that need for a hook could also be considered somewhat
>> intrusive of the package, so opinions *against* that would be good to
>> hear.
>
> It would be good to have a possibility of using the message as
> footnote-text, perhaps triggering the footnote through a boolean then.
> I would certainly prefer not to need a footnote hook; it seems
> somewhat redundant from a user’s perspective.
I also have the impression that everything that has to be written
*outside* the \with {} makes the whole thing rather cluttered (and we
also have to take into account that we need different syntax for
\override and \tweak-style annotations).
So if it's possible to avoid having to do that I think it would be
definitely preferable.
Urs
>
> Best, Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
