David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
When numbering measures at the beginning of a line, if there be a line
break in the middle of the measure, the number should be that of the
*following* measure, not the current measure which is broken. I should
have pointed that out.
That's because it is not possible
On Friday 12 March 2004 05:18, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
When numbering measures at the beginning of a line, if there be a
line break in the middle of the measure, the number should be that
of the *following* measure, not the current measure which is
broken. I
