Adding Bars when adding System/Frame Breaks

The following situations to me make tremendous sense:

Create a new measure when I am in Write mode and I enter more material than I have bars for: Good.
Create a new measure when I am in Write mode and I enter a key signature/meter change at the final barline: Logical, great.
Create a new measure when I am in Write mode and I enter additional bars in the Bar popover: Great!

Then there’s this one:

Create a new measure when I am in Engrave mode and I enter a System or Frame Break at the final barline: Why?

I have to imagine this is somehow intentional behavior, but who is using this feature in Engrave mode of all places? The last thing I think anyone would need is worrying about accidentally adding measures at the end of pieces when laying out parts.

Frame Breaks and System Breaks push the following music onto the next frame/system. If you put one on a final barline then Dorico has to add something after that bar to push onto the next frame/system.

Why are you putting breaks on final barlines?

If you want a flow to start on a new page, put a frame break at the start of that flow, not at the end of the previous flow.

I feel some are misunderstanding my question. I fully understand how Dorico thinks and works. I personally don’t think it is as logical to place a frame break at the start of a new flow rather than the end of one, but fine, I could live with that, the same way that giving in to slightly different thinking is what makes Dorico wonderful.

My question is, why would there ever be a need to create new measures through system breaks and frame breaks in Engrave mode? It’s one thing for it to be part of how the program understands things, but we’re also dealing with software which caters to a user base—are there genuinely any users who want the ability to create measures in Engrave mode?

To state my case in a different way: I’m not asking Dorico to let me make frame breaks for a new flow at the end of the old one, I’m asking it to do nothing if I accidentally do that, not create a huge roadmap issue across parts!

EDIT: This post was in response to a now deleted post.

This is precisely my point though—given the situation, the program has to make a decision which I fully respect. But in real use, 10 times out of 10 an extra measure is not wanted (nor expected in a mode which is supposed to only be for visual layout). Why is it outlandish for me to expect the program to say “There is nothing more for me to push forward in the flow” and not put any break at all, rather than the absurd “Let me create a new measure for you outside of the mode devoted to creation”.

I really don’t feel this is being an alternate-software curmudgeon, I think it’s a genuine question.

Why is it “10 times out of 10”? Suppose I have a flow where I know I want a page break at some point in the middle. I create the music up to the page break, check the formatting in Engrave mode, and then want to add the frame break and the rest of the music…

I accept that you might never want to do that, but someone else might.

If what you say is a genuine use-case that someone may do in their workflow, then I would have to accept that. But it certainly is one I cannot fathom being desired—someone would actually work that way?

At the very least, I would say that working in such a way does not seem to honor how the program is designed, with a clear workflow delineation between the Modes, beginning with Setup and eventually moving to Print. Much in the same way they implore us not to turn on Condensing until all work is actually finished. So for someone to utilize the creation of measures by way of System/Frame Breaks at the final barline as a mid-point in their process to me seems…unusual.

At first you may have had a point to make; but essentially repeating your argument for the third time sounds like nitpicking. You can be sure the Development Team will read this thread and (when the time is right) make any corrections they feel are needed.

To be fair to Joshua, originally there was a post from me between posts #4 and #5. I typed something, submitted, then saw that Joshua had edited post #4, then re-read the thread, then thought better of my comment and deleted. Presumably within seconds of me deleting my post, he posted what now shows as post #5.

To be fair, that is possible.

To be fair to me, it is not only possible, but exactly what happened. If your criticism of my argument is merely how I made it, then I apologize. I am not intending to nitpick, nor do I intend to use this forum merely to air grievances to a hard-working development team (and one working on frankly more exciting things than Frame Breaks), but instead ask what I think are decent questions about the software’s behavior directly to the user base. I still think it’s a decent question to ask if anyone uses this behavior as it’s intended, and my initial reframing of my argument was only because it seemed like people were focusing on how to properly place Frame Breaks, which wasn’t the crux of my argument.

My suspicion is that adding a Break to a final barline simply isn’t expected user behaviour.
If it’s at the end of a flow, there isn’t anything to push onto the next system/frame.
As to why it works like this, note that the things you can do from a selected Break (Staff Labelling and Staff Size/telling it to wait for another Break) apply to what comes after the Break. If the Break was allowed to be attached to the final barline, rather than to the first note of the next Flow, you’d have a signpost attached to one flow whose properties only affected the next flow, which just wouldn’t make sense.

I’d never dream of calling you a curmudgeon, but Dorico and Sibelius do this stuff in different ways for valid reasons.

This is additionally my suspicion—certainly for my use it only comes up as user behavior by mistake. Again, I am really not protesting the logic of Dorico in this sense with regard to Breaks. It makes perfect sense. The only thing that doesn’t make sense to me is the bar creation.

If you put one on a final barline then Dorico has to add something after that bar to push onto the next frame/system.

The idea that Dorico has to is the only thing my question is about. The only thing.

When you add a break at the end of a flow, you’re creating an item at the rhythmic position that both corresponds to the final barline and also the start of the following bar (were one to exist). In general, if you add an item at the rhythmic position that corresponds with the final barline, such as a note, Dorico will create a bar for that note to appear in. Even though it’s a bit counter-intuitive, that’s also what happens when you create a break at the rhythmic position corresponding to the end of the flow.

I won’t argue that this behavior is indeed in line with how Dorico works and places items. The surprise is not that it does, but that no one seems to think that perhaps it shouldn’t. In the case of the examples I gave in Write Mode, there is a very practical application of Dorico’s thought to the benefit of the end user. Music flows endlessly, as needed, in Write Mode—immediate, tangible benefit. My question remains—yes, this behavior certainly makes sense, but in Engrave Mode, who does it benefit? What workflow does this expedite? Is the concept of adding material in Engrave Mode not already slightly jarring, given the manual reads as follows:

Engrave mode allows you to manipulate and modify every item in your project, but without deleting them or changing the pitch of notes.

Certainly it then doesn’t outlaw the creation of an item, but to me it seems antithetical to the concept: After some testing, the only kind of item I can create while in Engrave Mode is an additional measure, which can be accomplished in two ways—by adding a Break at the final barline, or by adding a Measure Number Change at the final barline. Clear precaution has been taken to make sure one cannot add a divisi change, additional staff, notes, pitch changes, meter changes, or even a new bar by invoking the popover while in Engrave Mode. Why should Breaks and Bar Numbers be different? And if it somehow should, who is that end user who is actively seeking this behavior?

Adding a bar number change at the end of the flow unavoidably adds an extra bar because a bar number change is internally represented as a time signature (because that is the way we guarantee that a barline exists at a particular position), and a time signature must always give rise to a bar. You may well argue that this isn’t helpful from the point of view of the user, but unfortunately software design involves endless trading off of competing requirements and architectural choices, and this is one that we’re not going to be changing any time soon. However, while you might argue it’s unhelpful, I would also argue that there is no legitimate use case for creating a bar number change on the last barline of the flow. Perhaps we should disable that altogether if it’s going to be a big issue for you (though I don’t understand why).

I’m sure the Development Team has better things to do than to invest time banning something because it bothers one user’s sense of logic when there are so many other features that will benefit large groups of users and extend the capabilities of the program.

I seem to recall some saying, “if banging your finger with a hammer hurts, stop doing it.”

Daniel, in a recent post, you likened the ability to delete comments in Engrave Mode as being a “slippery slope” toward other behavior which is expressly disallowed in Engrave Mode.

If you don’t mind my assumption, for you it seems the ability to create measures in Engrave Mode through either of the two ways I mentioned, intentional or inadvertent, is not part of the same slippery slope. This is an entirely philosophical question: Is there any reason you feel differently?

I don’t know if I am having exactly the same situation. I am working on an orchestral score and Dorico keeps adding a blank measure at the end. It has happened about 5 times. Because it is at the end, I don’t ever see it when it happens, and usually don’t catch it until after I have printed parts. This never happened to me before D3. Coincidence? I don’t know.

Just for the record, I never add system breaks on the last line. However, I do occasionally form a frame break in one or more parts and sometimes that frame goes up to the final bar. If that is the cause, that would make no sense because there is never any music in the added bar. And I don’t understand why adding system or frame breaks would cause a blank measure to be inserted anyway.

Craig, as you’ll have seen further up the thread: don’t put breaks on final barlines. If you want the next flow to fall on a new page/system, put a break on beat one of the next flow - read up in order to understand why adding breaks would cause a blank measure to be inserted.

The other things that sometimes cause extra bars to be created (off the top of my head) are time signatures with pickups (you can’t have just a pickup bar on its own, with no complete bar after it), manually-added cautionary key signatures at the ends of flows (this needs a slightly trickier workaround). Also gradual dynamics, lyric extenders, gradual tempi, pedal lines, octave lines (and I guess Playing Technique continuation lines) that inadvertently stretch beyond the end of the flow. Most of these appear most frequently in conjunction with MusicXML imports.