[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (Solved)Re: To get rid of the horizontal line before the footnotes?
From: |
Richard Shann |
Subject: |
Re: (Solved)Re: To get rid of the horizontal line before the footnotes? |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Feb 2022 16:43:33 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.3-1 |
On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 15:59 +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/22, 8:57 AM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Richard Shann"
> <lilypond-user-bounces+carl.d.sorensen=gmail.com@gnu.org on behalf of
> richard@rshann.plus.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 13:41 +0100, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> > Le 05/02/2022 à 12:50, Richard Shann a écrit :
> > > On Sat, 2022-02-05 at 11:30 +0000, Richard Shann wrote:
> > > > Is there a way to drop the line that is drawn below the
> systems
> > > > above
> > > > the footnotes?
> > > Sorry for asking before searching the mailing-list archives,
> > >
> > > \paper { footnote-separator-markup = ##f }
> > >
> > > is the answer I see. The docs often still defeat me, just too
> much
> > > stuff :(
> >
> >
> >
> > How about using the indices? Looking at
> >
> >
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/lilypond-index.html#lilypond-index_cp_letter-F
> >
> > around 'footnote' directs you to 'footnote-separator-markup'
> > immediately.
>
> Thanks-
> It's good that it's there - I often look in those indices to
> try and track things down; what that entry leads to is an entry
> in a
> section called "Miscellaneous paper variables", I must have
> missed it.
> I wonder if that entry in that section would be better placed in
> the
> section on footnotes
>
>
> https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.22/Documentation/notation/creating-footnotes
>
> I gave this section a good read. I noticed it did document
> annotation-
> line which I picked up on when I was implementing footnotes in
> Denemo
> some years ago, but no mention of the footnote-separator ...
>
> The footnote-separator markup is listed in the first paragraph of the
> page on the link you sent.
ha, I see I linked to 2.22 but I had been reading 2.20 :(
nice to know that the docs are improving as always.
Richard