On 14 Jul 2002, at 7:16, David H. Bailey wrote: > Here is a situation that might throw a monkey-wrench into the concept of > parts-anchored-to-score-file -- What would happen to the parts if you > write out a full score only to get all the parts just as you wish, but > then you don't want a full score anymore so you collaps it into a > condensed score?
Well, I don't see the issue, since right now you have the same set of problems. That is, you can't produce the same parts from a condensed score that you can from a full score. > I can see lots of room for nightmare situations while we all learn how > to be sure to set such internal switches before we dare enter a single > thing in the score file. > > I don't have a problem with Coda implementing this concept, as long as > it could be completely switched off for those of us who are wary of such > changes behind our backs, and has a lot of error-trapping and Undo > levels for those of us who do use it.. I think the idea of separate files connected back to the score file is a complete non-starter. I can't imagine any reason for implementing this feature in anything but a single combined file, with the capability available for saving out independent part files, as with the current capabilities of Finale. > A few other cautionary situations: > > What would happen if a part file were missing, when the score went to > update changes to the parts? I know this is a programming issue and not > a concept issue, but it would be important that the program not "perform > an illegal operation" by trying to update a part that isn't there. > > What would happen to the UNDO function if you initiate some killer > change and later decide it wasn't so great after all? Would it be able > to Undo all the changes to the parts as well? Again, I don't think the idea of separate files connected back to the score works at all. I don't think it's a reasonable approach to the problem at all. > What would happen to text blocks if you decide you want to add a comment > to the conductor that you don't want in the parts? How would that be > indicated if you enter that block before you extract parts? Each text > block would need to have a switch somewhere for "update in parts? > yes/no." Right now it is still a problem, but I can wait to enter such > text blocks until after I extract parts. But if the parts are > automatically updated by the score, how would this work if I need to > enter a text block for ALL parts, but also a single text block I want > entered only in the score? Well, you can control whether expressions appear in parts/scores, etc., so I don't see why text blocks could not be handled the same way. Seems a pretty minor issue to me. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
