Adding an option for making measure number invisible
I suggest making an option available for making select measure numbers invisible. Maybe make the option available in "Measure Properties." That way we can remove a measure number under a rehearsal mark.
EDIT: Better yet, create an option for turning a measure number into rehearsal mark.
Overall, I think rehearsal marks and measure numbers need to be re-thought out. I personally don't like to have a measure number and rehearsal mark showing at the same time.
Comments
For the moment, here is a workaround http://musescore.org/en/node/13663
In reply to For the moment, here is a by [DELETED] 5
I know, I was the one who created that article. . But since then, I've still found flaws. So, now I'm back and asking more questions. This time, I thought about asking to make a new feature.
In reply to I know, I was the one who by Sean Oliveras
Aside from being cumbersome, I'm curious about the flaws. Anyhow, I would agree that ideally, one might expect to be able to select a measure number than mark it invisible. One might also expect to be able to drag it - and perhaps that would affect just that number, but combined with Ctrl (or whatever) would actually change the position of all (shortcutting the style setting that normally controls this). However, since measure numbers are, as far as I can tell, generated on the fly rather than actually being part of the score, I'm guessing that even making them selectable would be difficult (although they managed to do this for staff names). So as a compromise solution, perhaps a simple flag in measure properties to suppress display of measure numbers?
In reply to Aside from being cumbersome, by Marc Sabatella
I updated the article on the awareness of one such flaw. Mainly, the flaw is marking a measure "irregular" will cause an unwanted split in multi measure rests. This causes problems for individual parts when there is a blank measure in front of a multi measure rest, and no reason for them to be split, and taking up more space in a part than is needed.
In reply to I updated the article on the by Sean Oliveras
Normally, you'd *want* multimeasures to be broken at rehearsal marks, so I'd consider this more a feature than an issue, but since you can force multimeasure rests to be split anyhow via a separate checkbox in that same dialog, I'd be fine with having "irregular" measure only breaking rests option were set. But I'm thinking that implementing a "suppress measure number" option in that same dialog would be better still.
In reply to Normally, you'd *want* by Marc Sabatella
Here is what I mean by splitting a multi measure rest. I do not want the split after rehearsal mark A. The empty bar after A should be part of the multi measure rest, but it is split because of the the bar is marked irregular. Now, reconsider the original problem with getting rid of a measure in order to place a rehearsal mark in its place. Do you see the problem?
In reply to Here is what I mean by by Sean Oliveras
Yes, thanks for the example. In this sense, what "irregular" does is actually *more* disruptive than merely setting "break multimeasure rest". Setting the latter flag forces the previous multimeasure rest to be broken, but still allows a new one to be started. But setting "irregular" causes the measure to be completely excluded from any multimeasure rest. And I see this remains true in 2.0. I'd submit that as an issue. But I could see that being considered "correct" behavior for some other potential use of this option, and in any case, I'd still hope to also see an option added to the measure properties dialog to simply suppress the measure number.