key commands in 4.0.2 German

• May 3, 2023 - 11:29

Hello;

not sure if this was reported elsewhere/before: There are issues with key commands at least in 4.0.2 German.

First, the default key commands for cresc./decresc. were changed; and it appears to me as if the bindings are now not following the symbol but the key position. And since the key position for "<" and ">" is different on an English keyboard we are now getting the commands "Shift ," and "Shift ." instead.
This of course breaks the mnemonic of < and >.
Reassigning those to the German keyboard is possible, however > (which is here Shift <) does not work subsequently.

All this worked fine in MS 3.

Comments

• May 3, 2023 - 18:13

> works for me (needs Shift on my keyboard too), with exactly that shortcuts.xml (indeed not with reassigning though)
It has this for that purpose:

    <SC>
        <key>add-hairpin</key>
        <seq>&lt;</seq>
    </SC>
    <SC>
        <key>add-hairpin-reverse</key>
        <seq>&gt;</seq>
    </SC>

That's not ist only change and extension though

Reply

• May 3, 2023 - 20:38

I tried it again - and again it doesn't work.
To make this somewhat reproduceable I startet by resetting the key commands for the hairpins to their default setting (Shift , and Shift .). Then I quit MS. Then I moved your shortcuts.xml into the appropriate folder and restarted MS. The key commands for the hairpins are now < and >. But while < works > still doesn't work.

This is on macOS Monterey; and I've observed this on another Mac as well. I can check tomorrow on Windows and on a third Mac.
As I wrote: there seems to be some general weirdness when it comes to the > (aka Shift <) key command; I believe this doesn't work at all. Maybe a Qt problem on macOS?
Example: I start MS without any shortcuts.xml (so it gets generated freshly) and assign > to "Elementsichtbarkeit umschalten" (not sure what that's called in English). > does NOT work for this - but instead < works as long as it isn't used for another command.

Reply

• May 4, 2023 - 14:18

That indeed works (both variants), thanks. The second one makes more sense from a logical point of view for me (it's "Shift+symbol without shift" while the first one is "shift+symbol that already requires shift").
Still feels like a bug to me, though.

Reply

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