Re: Footnoted articulation attaches the articulation to the wrong note

[David Kastrup]

Vaughan McAlley <address@hidden> writes:

>> I’m not top posting
>
> %{
> This excerpt looks as it is intended to look, with the \prall on the d
> with the footnote attached to it. To get it to look like this, the
> \prall needs to be placed before the d. With the code
> d2^\prall
> ... the prall ends up on the c grace note.
> %}
>
> \version "2.16.0"
>
> upper = \relative c {
>   \voiceOne
>   f4 f c' c
>   \grace { e8 }
>   \footnote "*" #'( 1 . 0 ) #'Script "* Trill if you like"
>   ^\prall d2 % should be d2^\prall

Well, you do the footnote on the prall.  If you want to do this properly
(I am astonished that this works, and it will likely at one time cease
doing so), try

  d2^\footnote "*" #'( 1 . 0 ) #'Script "* Trill if you like" \prall

Basically, you put the \footnote to the \prall, and use that as your
articulation.  It does not matter whether you write

d2-\footnote ... ^\prall

or

d2^\footnote ... \prall

and there will come a time when you can even write

d2\footnote ... ^\prall

namely let LilyPond figure out that the footnoted construct is supposed
to be an articulation on d2.  When this time comes, LilyPond will
complain about your current version which does not make all too much
sense.

Just remember that \footnote ... is basically a copy of its last
argument with a footnote attached to it, then the syntax makes sense.
LilyPond is not smart enough yet to recognize that the whole \footnote
is an attachment/accent _syntactically_, so you need an explicit - or ^
to stick it to the preceding d2.

Your current version _exploits_ this confusion of LilyPond by letting
the result work as an independent music event happening at the same time
as the following one.  This use is not actually supported, and it will
cease working at one point of time.  It is probably easy to start
warning about it, so it is likely I will do so soonish.

-- 
David Kastrup