> I didn't mean that it had to be implemented, only that if it is
> implemented it has to be the number of the first bar in the line. We
> agree on that, but I was trying to convince the original poster, who
> presumably did not agree.
I think I was the original poster, and I certainly do agree.
On Friday 12 March 2004 05:18, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > When numbering measures at the beginning of a line, if there be a
> > line break in the middle of the measure, the number should be that
> > of the *following* measure, not the current measure which is
> > broken
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
When numbering measures at the beginning of a line, if there be a line
break in the middle of the measure, the number should be that of the
*following* measure, not the current measure which is broken. I should
have pointed that out.
That's because it is not possible
When numbering measures at the beginning of a line, if there be a line
break in the middle of the measure, the number should be that of the
*following* measure, not the current measure which is broken. I should
have pointed that out.
That's because it is not possible to number measures, because a
