Re: Doc: Clarify documentation of footnotes (2971) (issue 6845078)

[tdanielsmusic]

Thanks for the review David.  Revised patch-set on
its way ...

Trevor



http://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1240
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1240: Although notes inside a chord
do cause events, time-based footnotes
On 2012/12/10 15:43:47, dak wrote:
> That is confusing: stems and flags are not events.  I'd rather write
something
> like:
> "Exactly which of a chord's multiple note events will be deemed the
root cause
> of a stem or flag is undefined.  So for annotating those, time-based
footnotes
> are preferable as well."

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/diff/8001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1388
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1388: < \single \footnote #'(-1 . -3)
"An A" NoteHead
On 2012/12/10 15:43:47, dak wrote:
> This is unnecessarily contorted: a NoteHead is the (only) directly
caused grob
> from a chord note, so just writing
> \footnote #'(-1 . -3) "An A" a
> will work fine.  \single is only necessary when you _need_ to specify
a
> particular grobname for a footnote attached to an event because the
grob in
> question is not directly attached to the event as well as the only
such grob.

Ah, OK.  I'd misunderstood that.  Changed text and
example.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6845078/