"Exclude from measure count" does not work (for me)
Seem to be wasting precious time trying to include the recitative in this score; throws off the count for the remainder of the score.
Hitting 'exclude, apply, ok' from measure properties does not change anything.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Exclude_Measure_from_Count.jpg | 251.7 KB |
| Requiem_in_memoriam_Josquin_Desprez.mscz | 26.85 KB |
Comments
Interesting, Looks like a bug indeed
It is not #282417: Allow "Exclude from measure count" command for multiple measures at once...
Feel free to add a new issue in the tracker
I'm not understanding the problem, the measure numbers seem correct to me. I see you've set the 11/4 measure to always show and to exclude. It shows as 51. Fine. Now I set "Always show" on the next measure and it also says 51. What is giving you the impression there is a problem? If you mean the status bar display, that is always based on the real/internal measure number.
BTW, instead of explicitly setting the time signature to 11/4, better to simply use Tools / Measure to join & split measures as necessary to create a measure with the necessary number of beats, rather than having to actualy count beats. Also you wouldn't need to then hide the time signature. Unless of course you want actually show it, but I don't think that would be appropriate here.
In reply to I'm not understanding the… by Marc Sabatella
It should show 50 though, not 51?
In reply to It should show 50 though,… by Jojo-Schmitz
If the measure is excluded, to me it's debatable as to whether it should show 50 or 51. What matters is, the measure before it is 50, the measure after is 51, so the measure clearly is being excluded from the measure count. Nothing is thrown off in any way that I can see.
In reply to If the measure is excluded,… by Marc Sabatella
Nope. Measure that goes back to whole note in cut time ("Et") should be measure 51; it is not. It is a minor consideration, but nonetheless irritating since I'm off by one measure through the whole rest of the piece.
Update: so the thing that is non-intuitive is that the bottom of the screen is showing me measure numbers that are not reflecting the change. This will continue unabated apparently. When I am in continuous mode, the measure number lingers on the outer left side as a reference, but not one that makes sense during input.
In reply to Nope. Measure that goes back… by lurohamey
It is measure 51. Turn on measure numbers and you'll see. As I said, the status bar always shows the internal numbers, it's normal / correct that it ignores adjustments made in measure properties. But anywhere that a measure is actually displayed in the score - like at the beginning of the system in page view - you will see that it definitely is exuding that measure just as I said. Try it and see!
In reply to It is measure 51. Turn on… by Marc Sabatella
In case there is any doubt that this is working as it should, here it is with measure numbers enabled for all measures:
You can see that the measure numbers displayed in the score are respecting the Exclude setting (I highlighted the duplicated 51 to make this crystal clear). And those are the ones this setting was designed to affect. The setting could more accurately be called "Exclude measure from the numbering of measure numbers displayed in the score, while still retaining the sequential numbering for internal use and display in the status bar to ensure that each measure does have a unique number" :-)
In reply to In case there is any doubt… by Marc Sabatella
I still think though that is shoulh be ...49, 50, 50, 51, 52..., i.e. the measure that is set to ignore measure count should show the same number as the one before not as the one after
In reply to I still think though that is… by Jojo-Schmitz
Six of one, half dozen of the other to me, but sure, Depends on your reason for excluding it and also your reason for showing a measure number on a measure you just said you don't want numbered...
In reply to Six of one, half dozen of… by Marc Sabatella
Imagine a mid-score pickup measure, in 4/4, a measure with 3/4, the next with 1/4. That next is basically the continuation of the previous, so should have the same measure number (if excluded from measure count).
Same for the very first measure, as a pickup measure, it should be measure 0, not (part of) measure 1 (which here is the first full measure).
In reply to Imagine a mid-score pickup… by Jojo-Schmitz
The first is indeed examples where you'd potentially want that behavior, but excluding it also suppresses the display of the measure number, by design. So it ends up not actually mattering in that case - the same result (no measure number appears in the excluded measure) either way.
I'm trying to think of real-world cases where you'd want the measure excluded and yet still have the number displayed. So, what about the case where you actually want the second half of the split measure to display the measure number? A way to get that behavior is by excluding the first half of the measure from the numbering. And then it works as expected currently, no change needed here either. If instead you left the first half included but excluded the second, then set the measure number to "Always show", now we finally have a case where arguably the 50/50 answer beats the 51/51 answer. But this results in the measure numebr displaying for both the second partial measure and the first full measure of the system, so it really doesn't seem as desirable a way to go.
In any case, this is all about split measures, which I imagine are only one of the real world use cases for excluding measures - and again, it's a use case that pretty much by definition doesn't want a measure nuber displayed at all.
As for a pickup, I can't imagine wanting to display a measure number there either, but if I did, only a computer programmer would want to see it numbered 0, I think :-)
Anyhow, I'm not saying there couldn't be a use case where a change would actually produce better results, so so far, it still seems like a no-op in most cases; a small step forwards in one unusual use case, and a step backwards in another.
In reply to The first is indeed examples… by Marc Sabatella
That is why this bug has never been noticed up to now ;-)
In reply to I still think though that is… by Jojo-Schmitz
Note that if the measure number should be shown, you can do this by giving the measure an offset of -1 rather than to exclude it from the counting…
I know it's not the same difference, but perhaps equally workable? The effort of doing so is identical.
In reply to Note that if the measure… by jeetee
Indeed. Which is one reason I'm not inclined to change it unless it can be shown there is a common real-world use case with a problem. You can already get pretty much whatever result you want by how you choose to use these options, and someone somewhere in the world is probably relying on each of these specific behaviors. Any change at this point breaks someone expecting the current behavior. So we'd better be awfully sure that that there would be more people affected positively than negatively from the change.
In reply to Note that if the measure… by jeetee
An offset -1 should do exactly the same as exclude from measure count.
In reply to An offset -1 should do… by Jojo-Schmitz
That's where the opinions and interpretations come into play.
Having offset -1 means that the measure has a resulting measure number, equal to the one from the previous measure.
Exclude from count to me should mean the measure isn't counted at all. It's simply skipped over. This to me also means that showing the measure number on such a measure should result in nothing being shown, as the measure doesn't have a number; It isn't counted
That, imho, should be the difference in behavior between the two paths.
In reply to That's where the opinions… by jeetee
Hmm, OK, I buy that argument ;-)
In reply to That's where the opinions… by jeetee
Interesting way of putting it. And indeed, we already do suppress displaying the number for excluded measures in most cases - the every system option as well as when its number comes up in the interval (eg, if you display measure numbers for every measure). Only question is what should happen if you try to .explicitly force it to display with "Always show". Again, to me, it's a non-issue - this should never happen in real life. I'd be fine with still not displaying it if excluded. But if we do choose to continue displaying something, I am more and more liking the current scheme, as it provides a way to get a different result than adding -1 to the measure number. So regardless of which number you want (assuming you're silly enough to want to number a measure you just excluded from numbering!), there's a way to get it.
In reply to Interesting way of putting… by Marc Sabatella
numbering all the measures means I don't have onscreen conflicting information past those two measures. I'll go with that.
In reply to Nope. Measure that goes back… by lurohamey
See #288968: Include both correlative and user-defined measure number in status bar