On 26 Sep 2002 at 19:16, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > At 1:23 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 26 Sep 2002 at 1:50, Mark D. Lew wrote: > > > >> I think this would be more convenient if it were a check box in the > >> Alternate Notation section of Staff Style definitions (and turned on by > >> default on the Blank staff styles that Coda provides). > > > >I don't see why. When would anyone want hidden or blank notation to > >effect spacing? I don't even see the utility in having it as an > >*option*, let alone having this useless option turned on by default. > > One might want it to affect spacing (one can only effect spacing by > pressing top-row 4 in Mass Mover) if one has chord symbols or other > note-attached items attached to the invisible entries.
Well, in that case, the expressions are not invisible, are they? So, they should have an effect on spacing. To be honest, I've never been thrilled with the way expressions and articulations in the blank notation layer still show up. I just don't think that's right, and it means that I have to put the non-playback- effecting articulations in the displayed layer, and the playback- effecting articulations/expressions in the blank layer. That means that often your articulations don't space themselves correctly, even when you flip the stems in the invisible layer, and you end up having to place them manually, one at a time. If the articulations in the playback layer (i.e., invisible) were also invisible, this simply wouldn't be an issue -- you'd put the articulations in both layers (in the visible for display, in the invisible to fix the playback). -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
