At 9:25 AM 07/12/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >Of course, it would all depend on how it was implemented, as there >are any number of pitfalls to deal with. But just because it's >possible to do it *wrong* does not mean it's impossible to do it >*right*. So much of the objection to the mere suggestion has been of >the nature of pointing out what could be done wrong in implementing >such a feature, and often predicated on the implicit assumption that >such a feature would require the removal of existing features for the >same functionality. Both types of objections are ridiculous, and look >like "pouncing" to me, even if made in the spirit of open discussion >to hash out what's valuable and what's not.
They don't look like "pouncing" to me. Who do you think is "objecting to the mere suggestion" of type-in-score? Certainly not me. Yes, several of us have discussed what could be done wrong in implementing it. That's just part of the discussion, sort of like your comment that "there are any number of pitfalls to deal with". I think the "objections" you object to are largely in your mind. In answered to my post, you responded to three separate points with >I think that's a ridiculous objection. >So the objection here is not really relevant. >I still don't see the objection. I still don't see the objection either -- because they were never intended as objections in the first place. Just a discussion of the various possibilities and their pros and cons. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
