On Friday 16 Jun 2006 18:31, D. Michael 'Silvan' McIntyre wrote: > 1....2....3....4....5....6.... > |###||:::||:::||:::||:::||###| > > # = real > > : = repeat > > Range from 3 to 5. Range copy. Paste at 4. > > What happens now?
I took the view that a range-copied segment would only be repeating if the whole of the _original_ segment was in the range, not just the whole of one of the repeated copies. If only part or none of the original is included, the copies will just be made concrete, even if one or more of them was complete. So you get this (I think, without testing it): 1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8.... |###||:::||:::||###||###| |###| i.e. the things pasted at 4 are concrete versions of the repeated copies, and then there's a gap up to the next real segment. You're right though if you're suggesting it might be nicer to copy possibly a partial segment to take the range up to the start of the first complete copy and then to copy a separate repeating segment with the whole copy in it. That wouldn't be too hard either. Maybe we should. That would give 1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8.... |###||:::||:::||###||:::||:::||:::||###| Mind you, I don't think it's safe to say you would always want the copy to repeat to fill up the space at 6 and 7 (even though in this example you probably would). I think that while we should make lots of effort to ensure that what is copied is what you expect, I don't think we always have to take into account all the consequences of where you choose to paste it. That's got to be your problem to some degree, it's just inevitable given the way repeating segments work. Chris _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
