On 27 Sep 2002 at 8:35, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > At 8:22 PM -0400 9/26/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >On 26 Sep 2002 at 20:05, David H. Bailey wrote: > > > >> I, for one, like the way it is implemented and have no confusion working > >> with it. > > > >You like seeing 1:23 go to 2:1 and then 2:31 going to 3:1 and then > >3:89 going to 90 and then 3:121 (which is displayed only as "121") > >going to 4:1, etc.? > > > Yep. That way it tallies with the measure numbers of the piece of > paper I am most probably working from. Although I admit that 3:121 > would probably be more clear to me than simply 121.
But that is my whole point. There is no utility in that context to there being no 3: with measure 121. That was all I was saying. -- 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
