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

[tdanielsmusic]

LGTM

I tried to make the text as concise as possible, so
it's quite expected that some expansion would be
required once someone tried to grasp this from scratch.



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:
On 2013/01/02 12:51:05, J_lowe wrote:
> 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).


I don't think so.  The whole reason this was added was
because this limitation was insufficiently clear.  Moving
it to Known issues wouldn't help.

https://codereview.appspot.com/7038047/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1422
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1422: ees fis
On 2013/01/02 12:51:05, J_lowe wrote:
> 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?

No need to move it to a snippet.  Most of the examples
would need to become snippets if we followed this logic.
Once the overrides are embeddded in a predef they are
fine in the main body.  In any case that 'rule' applies
only to the first two chapters (and fairly loosely to
Chapter 2).

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