Re: GSoC update; Q's about final/draft modes, and triggering footnotes

[Jeffery Shivers]

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 <address@hidden> 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
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user