Urs,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:27:05 +0200, Urs Liska <[email protected]> wrote:
> As per NR 3.2.4 it is possible to specify an explicit footnote mark as
> opposed to the automatic number. However, in this case the mark is *not*
> repeated in the footnote itself. The examples in the section show that
> this is not a bug but known behaviour:
>
> \footnote "*" #'(0.5 . -2) \markup { \italic "* The first note" } a'4
>
> But I'd like to ask if there's a reasoning behind that. I can't think of
> a case where you'd not want to have matching marks in the annotation and
> the footnote. Wouldn't it be better to have that automatically, like
> with automatic numbers?
>
> Urs
>
You already know my development skills (i.e non-existant) but I recall that
Mike Solomon did a lot of work with the footnote code and I had to go back and
forth with him to doc it 'properly'. You may find something in his code or his
past dev emails
E.g
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commit;h=181366ec566a338c265ff4960724202d0d55ef79
Regards
James
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
