In that case, you might want to save space by note showing the staff at all for that system. It's designed for a totally different scenario - an ensemble score in which a particular instrument doesn't play at all for a given system. I think the technical name for this construction is 'ossia', not sure if that's possible in musescore, but that might give you a starting point to search for. But that might not be what you're looking for. The standard way to notate this is to actually include the proper number of measures, put single-measure repeats in each, and then write numbers above to help people count.Īnyhow, as to the actual question - the option you are describing isn't "hide empty bars", but "hide empty staves". I know there is an option to hide empty staves somewhere. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. So you're unlikely to get the effect you want. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. I guess you want people to think you meant the last, but I wouldn't rely on that - it's probably the least likely interpretation. A measure repeat with a 12 over it would be more or less equally likely to be interpreted as any of the following:Ģ) repeat last measure once this particular repeat is number 12 (which it isn't of course) But whether we consider it now or later, hopefully these comments help us remember what is going on.I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate here, but a 12-measure repeat is not a thing - virtually no published music does this, so most musicians have never seen such a thing. Of course, I realize it's late in the game to try to squeeze this into the RC, and that's fine - considering this issue has been with us for years, waiting a bit longer wouldn't be the end of the world. My take is, then, that if we implement this change, plus fix to still generate the key signatures on the hidden staves as layout changes, we could actually consider 50316 fixed. So we should be safe from the "ping-ponging layout" effect that occasionally plague us. But it shouldn't - it still has the key signature in the hidden staff, computeMinWidth will still see it. One might worry that on the next layout, this measure may decide to float back to the previous system. ![]() Now, what this does mean is that we have overestimated the width of this measure, and the stretch might not be perfect. In Finale versions before 2011, systems could be optimized to remove empty staves from them and also permit staves in a system to be positioned independently from other systems. So in practice, it appears to be safe to skip hidden staves within systems in layoutX. In fact, by the time layoutX is called, we've already done everything that actually affects layout - added system headers, courtesy signatures, etc. If MuseScore isnt hiding those staves, it is because it for some reason thinks theyre not actually empty (this includes having invisible markings/notes). Hide empty staves renamed staff visibility. So in layoutX(), we have already hidden what is going to be hidden, and thus we can make use of that information to skip elements on the hidden staves when laying out the measures. powerful lyrics copy and paste tools - implode/explode: combine up to four voices on one staff, then separate to individual staves - hide empty vocal staves, such as in a piano intro - figured bass for historical notation - smart lyrics: unlimited verses, with notes and staves automatically spaced, and verse numbers automatically aligned. It turns out the hiding of empty staves happens between these two stages. Then later we actually layout the measures, using code in layoutX that is largely the same as computeMinWidth. That is, first we compute minimum measure widths (computeMinWidth), and we use this decide which measures go on which systems. To delete the selected staves and reposition any remaining staves, choose Staff > Delete Staves and Reposition. To remove selected staves without adjusting the position of the remaining staves, choose Staff > Delete Staves. ![]() It turns out it is not too late, because of the two-stage nature of measure layout. Select the handles of (or measure regions in) the staff or staves to be deleted. I started thinking about why the fix even worked - seems it should be too late too be zeroing out bboxes even if it were ok to do that. ![]() In #1876 I propose a fix that worked but in hindsight it seemed strange that it did, plus there were philosophical issues with zeroing on the bbox. Result All bar rests in empty bars in the selected layouts are shown when the checkbox is activated, and hidden when the checkbox is deactivated. While testing a proposed fix to the issue named above, I discovered a related long-standing bug (it's in 1.3): if hiding empty staves, the space for key signatures in the hidden staves is still reserved in the remaining staves. In the Bar Rests and Multi-bar Rests section, activate/deactivate Show bar rests in empty bars.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |