Re: measure numbers and line breaks

[Mats Bengtsson]

David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> When numbering measures at the beginning of a line, if there be a line
> break in the middle of the measure, the number should be that of the
> *following* measure, not the current measure which is broken.  I should
> have pointed that out.
>
> That's because it is not possible to number measures, because a measure
> is not an artifact.  You have to number bars, and the bar that you
> number has to be the first one that you have in that line, hence the
> following measure.  That is why the first measure counted at the
> beginning is always the first complete measure.  That may not be very
> intuitive, but that's the way it has to be.  Does that have something to
> do with the bug being so persistent?  daveA

You claim that "that's the way it has to be". I claim that I, as a
musician, would be very confused if the bar number was not typeset
at the beginning of the bar it applied to. If you have an eighth note
upbeat, it's fairly obvious what is intended but if it's half a bar
in 12/8 or so, then the number could be several centimeters away from
the bar it applies to and I can promise that it would cause lots of
frustration in an orchestral rehearsal, for example.

Anyway, we both agree that it's the first full bar of the line that
should be numbered, so these are just minor details. The main reason
that this feature has not been implemented so far is probably that
it is very hard to implement cleanly because of the way line breaks
are handled today. I leave it as a challange to Han-Wen, Jan or any
other hacker to solve it.

   /Mats