On 6 Jul 2005 at 11:34, Andrew Stiller wrote: > Thinking about the issue of linked parts, I realize that what I would > like is considerably less than that. Dynamic linking is useful only if > you make musically significant changes in the score that need to be > reflected in the parts. I won't say I never do that, but it only > happens once or twice a year, and almost never impacts more than one > or two parts. > > More useful to me would be *reverse* linking, because part extraction > provides the final proofreading check of the score, particularly for > things like arco/pizz. and con/senza sord. It would indeed be very > nice, therefore, to be able to make a change to a part and have it > automatically appear in the score.
If part view is just a view of the underlying data, you automatically get two-way linking. That is, changes to the score appear in the parts, and changes to the parts appear in the score. The exception to this is, of course, spacing, which is kept independently for the parts and score, as it must be. This is exactly what the Sibelius demo shows, so I'm not sure why you make your post. Are you saying that you'd *never* want score-to-part updates, but *only* part-to-score updates? I can't see the utility of having only the one direction without the other. I can see doing it only one way by preference, but cannot see a justification for actually limiting the program to one-way updates. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
