NoteWorthy Composer Forum

Mike, there is something I'm missing.
...
What I got wrong?

I probably wasn't very clear, so let me try again.

Let's assume there are users of NWC who are currently using the "Arpeggio.ms: Toggle" user tool, This user tool hasn't changed for quite a while, and we'll also assume it behaves correctly for those users. Now, I can update Arpeggio.ms such that the core plugin behavior does not change at all, but the user tool behaves very differently. It might also have unintended bugs, so that a user who executes "Toggle" does not get what they expected. It's even possible that a bug in the user tool could garble the notes in the score, when the tool is run. This would obviously upset someone, if they did not save their score before they ran the tool. (I don't remember whether "Undo" will work after a user tool is run, but that's a separate issue).  My point is that if people are getting acceptable behavior from "Toggle" today, and I make a change to the tool to add new features, and it stops working correctly, that would be a bad thing.  Hence it would be nice to find a few users who would be willing to test the change before I make it official.

In a subsequent reply, David brings up a valid point: why not just release a "test" version of the object with a slightly different name? That could work, but then the testers wouldn't be able to test the cloning function on arpeggios in existing scores; they would need to create sample scores, insert an ArpeggioTest.ms in that score with some parameters, and then run the "Toggle" tool on some later chord, to confirm that it clones the parameters. The embedded user tool copies parameters from a previous arpeggio object in the score of the same type as the plugin that contains the tool. Maybe this isn't a big deal to testers.

To me, the bigger question is: is this potential new feature in the user tool something that people would want or need? If the answer is no, then it's probably not worth releasing it for testing.

Mike, there is something I'm missing.

You're talking about a user tool, even if embedded in a plugin.
A user tool is only applied once while editing and leaves no traces of itself in the score. I mean: what you do with a user tool can also be done by hand; you can never say for sure it was done with a user tool.
A plugin instead is quite different: it stays in the score and it's executed/evaluated every time.

If you change a user tool, this will never affect the old scores.
At most, you force a user to change his habits or, worst of the worst, do not use it..

What I got wrong?

I'm using NWC ver. 2.75a.2 and have not succeeded in preventing rests from colliding with notes of other staffs when layering. I would prefer to avoid using vertical offset in staff properties. All that does is exile the rests to limbo somewhere above the staff, and this looks just as bad in the hard copy printout. Previous versions of NWC apparently had a Hide Rest feature but either my version doesn't or I can't find it. Ideas....?

I take your point, Mike. (Also, not being a guitarist, I didn't pick up on the strumming, my bad).
Jakeness, I notice you want to prevent rests overlapping notes when layering.  Why not just adjust the vertical position of those rests that do collide?  Instead of hiding them, when you're layering to present two parts on one printed staff (as for a duet), quarter-rests and smaller can simply be moved above or below the staff as necessary, so the user will see them as s/he sings or plays his/her part.
 Half and whole rests can sit on/hang from other lines of the staff or even leger lines.

Thanks Mike, I'm sure Joel will be very appreciative!

Me too! 

Talk about "Service with a smile"...  Thanks Mike, I'm sure Joel will be very appreciative!