At 8:29 PM -0400 9/28/02, David W. Fenton wrote: >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.
Ah. I thought you were saying you didn't like 1:23 going to 2:1 either (along with all the other behaviours), since it was all part of the same complaint. Sorry. Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
