Re: footnotes and chord constructs

[David Kastrup]

Federico Bruni <address@hidden> writes:

> Il 02/01/2013 10:33, David Kastrup ha scritto:
>>>> 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?
>>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >  A simple warning saying that \footnote must be used inside a chord
>>> >  construct would have helped. I wouldn't give it for granted.
>> Exactly this has been said in the passage you quoted above:
>>
>>>>> >>>  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.
>> Since you repeat your complaint after quoting the text, and even after
>> we had this brief discussion (which a reader of the manual will_not_
>> have at his disposal), it is obvious that this passage has been written
>> in a manner that fails to make readers realize its actual meaning.
>>
>
> What is confusing in this passage is what "constituent" means.
> Does it refer to the notes of a chord or to each element of a chord
> (accidental and stem included)?

It's actually notes in the chord as well as per-chord articulations.
But in this context, omitting mention of the latter would probably not
be problematic.

> That's why I was caused to think that grob-name was required to attach
> a footnote to a note inside a chord.
>
> I think that this should be explained separately and earlier.

I'll try proposing a patch along these lines.

> I'm sorry, I don't understand well the topic and I'm not good at
> writing documentation. Hope it makes sense and can help someone who
> can write good documentation.

That would not include me.  But maybe I'll get by with a little help
from my friends.

-- 
David Kastrup