Duplicate fingering should replace existing entry

• Jan 18, 2012 - 05:46

In other words, if I try to apply finger 2 to a note that is already marked as finger 1, the 1 should normally be deleted. A right-click or other option would be used to override this. However, we currently have the fingering palette overloaded with fingerings, string numbers, and other details. To distinguish a (normally incorrect) duplicate fingering, e.g. 1 and 2 on the same note, from a valid overloaded notation, e.g. 1 and m and string 2 on the same note, we must be able to classify the fingering palette entries into groups, e.g. fingers 1-2-3-4 should be a distinct group from string numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6, fingers p-i-m-a-c, etc. A given note should normally have at most one entry from each group. In cases where multiple values need to be specified, an exception mechanism should be present. However the interface should optimize for rapid entry of the normal case -- which is at most one digit from each fingering group.


In reply to by chen lung

Clearly there is or should be a dependency tree where all these sorts of features hang. If we delete the root, the whole tree should disappear; ditto cut/paste/move. I just had a to deal with random flat sign that remained on the staff after a note change :)

A related issue is the relationship of such dependent features to staves versus notes. This relationship is often counter-intuitive. (E.g. I'd expect octava to relate to starting and ending notes rather than the lines on which they sit. Ditto many of the other line elements. Cut and paste is particularly vexing for me. I seem to get random assortments of things pasted, often not what I expect and certainly not all the objects of a particular type. This must relate to the way or sequence I created them. These are obviously separate topics but they seem germane to the question of what gets deleted/cut/moved.)

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.