On 05.07.2002 23:43 Uhr, Robert Patterson wrote > Johannes Gebauer wrote: >> (checking Tie End has no effect, and the >> next time I call the dialog the checkmark has disappeared. >> > > Tie Ends are simply not the answer for 2nd endings (or codas) and they > never have been. A tie end only appears at the beginning of a system. > Those who suggest using them for 2nd endings are misconstruing Finale's > purpose for them, which is (and *only* is) to be a continuation for a > tie across a system break. > > The only reliable solution is a shape expression. Some users may object > that this shouldn't be necessary, but I say such objections are > pointless. Shape expressions work very well for the purpose, and tie > ends do not. Accept it and move on. With such a simple solution in > place, I for one hope Coda won't spend any further development time on it.
Ok, actually a shape articulation may even do a better job (because they can be made autoplacing, and one really only needs two of them, one for notes without, and one for notes with accidentals). However, I do remember that Tie Ends in the Edit Frame dialog were actually suggested in this situation in earlier Finale versions by the manual. And in a true 1st and 2nd ending situation they seem to work just fine. However, as soon as one is not in such a situation (ie there is no first/second ending) it simply does not function. You have your reasons to say that Tie Ends cause problems, but as far as I can see Finale just prevents them from happening in situations other than endings and beginning of systems. Other than that is there a problem? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
