> SIMONS, DON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >People generally are far more likely to post their problems and
> >questions than to go out of the way to praise something. It's a
> >little like the evening news.
>
>
> This pretty much describes me at the moment.... BUT anyway... THANKS DON,
> and THANKS, Dirk!
I totally agree.
> About complicated systems... Consider what a typical Windows 95 system goes
> through just to bring you a reasonable (??) graphical user interface... I
> think that the whole Windows operating system is an order of magnitude more
> fragile and complicated than the whole parade of M-Tx to Tex lineup. The
> whole thing is a house of cards anyway... Be thankful for every successfully
> printed page.
Yes, exactly!
>
And anyway: the whole thing is a treat!
Nobody is forced to use PMX.
I admit that at times I also enjoy to work on the 'low level' called
MusiXTeX itself. For instance when I want to include some more or less
short piece of music, some example of music
in a TeXt file, I like to code it on my own. The code is shorter and
makes me remember MusiXTeX and appreciate its features.
For a whole piece of music to be used for playing
prefer to use PMX or M-Tx, because it saves time.
One of the most genious features of PMX is that it
allows you to use your MusiXTeXnical knowledge and insert it as
inline TeX. Of course the whole thing is not very easy (I remember
I hesitated to use inline TeX when I started to use PMX),
but this is also the challenge of the whole game.
And I enjoy this game very much!
There is no doubt that MusiXTeX is more 'complicated'
(this is ablolutely no complaint, Daniel et al! I love MusiXTeX, I
admire it.), this is a reason to like it and at the same time
it can be a reason to use PMX.
The music I am going to use in a concert next weekend
I would never have typed in MusiXteX, just becuase of lack of time.
Maybe I would have started to do one piece of it, because
it is a challenge.
but for quick use PMX is great. I think this is
undenialbe for anybody who has reached the level of MusixTeX
and has worked a little bit with PMX.
Truely there may still be some surprise working with,
like the one I had yesterday.
But I can proudly say: I found the reason.
So here is my question:
Or a request?
PMX has (like any program) limits.
E.g. it has limited the number of forced line breaks ('L..')
to 40.
For a collection of exercises on figured bass I would be gald
to increase this number to, ehm, this is going to be embarrassing,
because it is almost greedy....,
well, because of the special character of this 'music' which consists
of many examples, I would be gald to increase this number to say,
120.
How can I do this? Impossible? Possible?
Also I found out, that the grace note command ('G..') does not
accept the '+/-' - signs for octave specification.
so 'Ga+' would not yield the expected result.
(a simple ad-hoc solution of course is the absolute specification,
such as 'Ga5')
Happ new Year with a lot of PMX, MusiXTeX, M-Tx, TeX, LaTeX, PlainTeX!
I love this tower!
yours Eckart
