If you want to work with an alternative tuning system, then the extra places for sharps or flats may well be useful. (BTW: this is one of the features for which LIME has a nice interface).
Daniel Wolf ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Finale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Finale] 127 sharps or flats? > At 5:58 AM +1000 6/23/02, Michael Edwards wrote: > > > So allowing more sharps or flats is reasonable up to a point, > >in view of this. But why up to as many as 127 sharps or flats? Is > >there a reason for this? - it does seem a bit over the top, in > >generosity of going beyond the standard limits. Or might it perhaps > >have just made the programming easier (127 being 1 less than a power > >of 2), and at least do no harm? > > I think you've got it right: 127 is 2 to the 7th - 1. They <probably> > just used a data type of signed short for the value. Pure > speculation: Negative values are number of flats and positive values > are number of sharps (or vice-versa). Nothing is hurt by the large > number available and they don't have to put in a lot of extra > range-checking code. > > Best wishes, > > -=-Dennis > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
