Now offset and footnote (text) can be set in the properties list. `footnote
= "text"` can be explicitly set and used for the footnote text, or, if not
set, `message = "text"` is assumed to be the footnote text, if made into a
footnote at all.
\criticalRemark \with {
message = "my message; could be a footnote too"
offset = #'(1 . 1)% tells scholarLY to make a footnote of this
footnote = "this could be a shorter footnote than message, and will
become the footnote if used"
} ...
Since offset is presumably always going to be used for footnotes, I think
*that* should be what triggers the footnote. So, inclusion of `offset =
#'(...)` will tell scholarLY that the annotation is a footnote; otherwise
it *isn't*. If it's preferred to rather have an explicit boolean (like
apply-footnote = ##t, or whatever), that could work. But I will say that I
prefer using something as obvious as offset as a sort of automatic
indication of footnote-ness.
-j
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
