"Cornelius C. Noack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > I am afraid I don't quite see the point of this: what's wrong with > PMX's 'rm' command? That is included in PMX for the specific > purpose > of parts-writing, and it is fully operational there. The only > difference I can see is the physical length of the multibar rest, > and the PMX default isn't, to me at least, any more ugly than that > of the multirest macro you propose.
Thanks! I had (a while back) missed that feature in the PMX manual (working mainly in M-TeX). Or, perhaps I did not understand the syntax required in the M-TeX file to make it work. However, the 'rm' command does just about all that is needed. Looking at it with fresh eyes, I realized that one needs to state the 'rm' command alone on a single line for it to be accepted by M-TeX. For example, my original M-TeX test file is adjusted as follows to work: %----- Test File (.mtx) ------ Title: Test multirest macros, with Measure Count adjust Meter: 4/4 Bars/Line: 8 Style: SOLO %%\\barnumbers\ c4 d e f | rm32 g4 f e d | c4 d e f | g e d e | c0 | c4 d e f | rm6 g4 f e d | c4 d e f | g e d e | c0 | %---- End of Test file ----- There are a few differences in the bar style for smaller numbers, but that is not typically an issue. Thanks! I guess the Manuals should be required reading once a year. It is very likely that we will always find (or understand) something new every time we read them. Joel Hunsberger _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icking-music-archive.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
