Re: Why is an explicit footnote mark not printed in the footnote?

[James Lowe]

Urs,

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:27:05 +0200, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

> As per NR 3.2.4 it is possible to specify an explicit footnote mark as 
> opposed to the automatic number. However, in this case the mark is *not* 
> repeated in the footnote itself. The examples in the section show that 
> this is not a bug but known behaviour:
> 
> \footnote "*" #'(0.5 . -2) \markup { \italic "* The first note" } a'4
> 
> But I'd like to ask if there's a reasoning behind that. I can't think of 
> a case where you'd not want to have matching marks in the annotation and 
> the footnote. Wouldn't it be better to have that automatically, like 
> with automatic numbers?
> 
> Urs
> 

You already know my development skills (i.e non-existant) but I recall that 
Mike Solomon did a lot of work with the footnote code and I had to go back and 
forth with him to doc it 'properly'. You may find something in his code or his 
past dev emails

E.g

http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commit;h=181366ec566a338c265ff4960724202d0d55ef79

Regards

James