On 6 Jul 2005 at 10:28, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > >On 6 Jul 2005 at 9:30, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > > > >Given that the pre-Sibelius 4 discussions of linked parts here in > >this forum revolved around the idea of implementing them by extending > > Special Part Extraction, where does the idea that it *wouldn't* be > >two-way by default come from? > > > Because the name, SPECIAL PART EXTRACTION means, to me, it's going to > be UNLINKED from the score. Hence the name, extraction.
Except that SPECIAL PART EXTRACTION as it exists today is *not* unlinked from the score -- it *is* the score, just a different view of it. The flaw in it is that layout changes also change the score, and that's why most people create a new file to do their special part extraction in. > So, if Finale did something like Sibelius's Dynamic Parts, it should > be something called LINKED parts. Or maybe we need to refer to it as > something else then. To me "linked" means between files, and that raises a whole host of difficult issues if you're trying to maintain links between separate objects in the file system that could be renamed or moved via means outside Finale. That's why I said earlier on that "linked parts" was a term I don't like, as it implies certain things. I see no easy way to implement dynamic parts with part files separate from the score. I think it's fairly easy to see, given the already pre-existing special parts extraction view, how it could be done in the score file -- it would "simply" be a matter of changing special parts extraction so that layout changes done in that mode are stored separately from the layout for the score *not* viewed in that mode, and with the layout changes stored for each individual part. One advantage would be that if it were implemented this way, you could still use groups and the like to define parts that have more than one staff in them. However, it wouldn't be possible without some kind of huge workaround (seems to me) to implement exploding layers into separate parts, unless you could have part definitions be layer- specific. Of course, we're all speculating about things that don't exist. I'm doing so based on my understanding of the relationship between databases and views of data from a database, as well as a rudimentary understanding of object orientation in computer programming. And so far as I can see, no one is suggesting that a dynamic parts function should remove existing functionality from Finale. If you had a part that needed to be extracted in a way that the new dynamic parts didn't really support, then you could still do a traditional extraction to a separate file. You'd lose the link back to the score, but losing it for the 2/4/6 parts that require exploding to different staves would still mean you'd have the linkage for all the other parts -- that is, it would vastly reduce the amount of work to maintain all the *other* parts. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
