This footnote feature is now up-and-running, for those who are interested.
https://github.com/openlilylib/scholarly/tree/footnotes-feature There is an example doc also: usage-examples/footnote-trigger-test.ly -j On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Jeffery Shivers <jefferyshiv...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
