Re: measure numbers and line breaks

[David Raleigh Arnold]

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.  I should have pointed that out.
> >
> > That's because it is not possible to number measures, because a
> > measure is not an artifact.  You have to number bars, and the bar
> > that you number has to be the first one that you have in that line,
> > hence the following measure.  That is why the first measure counted
> > at the beginning is always the first complete measure.  That may
> > not be very intuitive, but that's the way it has to be.  Does that
> > have something to do with the bug being so persistent?  daveA
>
> You claim that "that's the way it has to be". I claim that I, as a
> musician, would be very confused if the bar number was not typeset
> at the beginning of the bar it applied to.

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.

There is an easy way to get rid of the numbers, so what's the harm?
daveA

-- 
It's not that hard to understand the lesson of Viet Nam.  Never never
never never defend one tyrant against another, because The worst thing
that can happen is you might win.  The *Gulf* war was worse than Nam.
D. Raleigh Arnold dra@ (http://www.) openguitar.com address@hidden