Re: footnotes and chord constructs

[David Kastrup]

Federico Bruni <address@hidden> writes:

> It took me some time to understand the following:
>
> \version "2.17.10"
>
> \relative c'' {
>   \footnote #'(2 . 4) "Footnote 1"  <d-3>2 % it's not printed because
> of the <>
>   \footnote #'(2 . 4) "Footnote 2"  Stem <d-3> % unless I specify Stem
> }
>
> IIUC, the grob-name *must* be specified when a footnote is attached to
> a note enclosed in a chord construct.

Uh, no?

\relative c'' {
  <\footnote #'(2 . 4) "Footnote 1" d-3>2
}

works just fine.

> I'm reading NR 3.2.3 and in particular:
>
> """
> 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.
>
> If the layout object being footmarked is indirectly caused by an event
> (like an Accidental or Stem caused by a NoteHead), an additional
> symbol argument, the grob-name, is required before the footnote text:
> """
>
> I'm not sure if this fully explain the "problem".
> What do you think?

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?

The second of the paragraphs you quoted is _not_, I repeat _not_
pertinent to the problem since it talks about a grob-name _before_ the
footnote text, not a grob name _instead_ of the music to footnotify.

This technique will work for, say, tweaking an accidental instead of a
notehead, but it will not carry through to the _inside_ of chords.

You either need to place your footnote _inside_ of the chord, _or_ you
need to use a time-based footnote in which case you can place it before
the chord, or even in parallel music in the same voice.

-- 
David Kastrup