Be more explicit about footnotes on chord constituents (issue 7038047)

[pkx166h]

coming from a 'not developer's' point of view.




https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1338
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1338:
Hello, I'd rather put all this as an @KNOWNISSUE only because the
document should say what does work now what doesn't (if you see what I
mean).

https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1403
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1403: footnote.  A @samp{NoteHead} is
the (only) grob directly caused
Don't see the point of the parenthesis here for '(only)' - I don't think
we need to pussy-foot here.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1422
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1422: ees fis
I know this wasn't a part of what you changed but Hmm...

is this just semantics or are we including what is effectively a
'snippet' here by using \single (now that I understand single better -
which is just a collection of overrides), if \single didn't exist today
would we do this \footnote example by using \override and so break our
'kind-of-sort-of' rule for not using overrides in @lilypond examples.

I.e move this whole example and the para you added as a snippet?

https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/