deleting a tuplet moves the notes

If I delete a tuplet at the end of a bar, Dorico moves one of the notes to the next bar.
Is this supposed to happen ?

Dorico has to put the notes somewhere, so yes.

This behavior has always felt inconsistent to me, and I wish it worked differently. I could see those notes moving to the next measure if insert mode were on, but not if it’s off.

I don’t know how Dorico could handle this better. In this case it’s probably the rest that you don’t want, but what if you had three notes under the triplet?

It strikes me that whatever Dorico does in this situation is going to be wrong, at least some of the time.

If I have two quarters and I change the first to a dotted quarter, I expect Dorico to borrow from the second unless Insert mode is on. I don’t expect later rhythmic spots to be altered. The second quarter note is subsumed into the preceding note, and (presumably) I knew what I was doing.

Same thing here. If Insert mode is off, I don’t expect Dorico to shift or overwrite later notes, under any condition. If I want to preserve the notes in the tuplet, I’d expect to turn on Insert mode before deleting the tuplet.

It’s a minor quibble…

I just want the triplets to become straight eights in the same bar…

I hate any destructive editing, but I’m with Dan here. Perhaps an exception could be carved out if the tuplet is followed by a rest, but I don’t want to see any changes past the beat I’m editing. Presumably if I delete a tuplet I’m paying attention to the notes that now don’t fit. I’m not necessarily paying attention to the notes in another beat that are now wiped out.

Enter an eighth note triplet followed by 2 eighth notes. If I delete the triplet, I’d much rather lose the last note of the triplet of the beat that I’m looking at than the next eighth note of the beat I’m not.

But Dorico does overwrite later notes when there are no tuplets, if you increase the duration of a note.

Nothing gets overwritten in insert mode. It doesn’t seem logical to me to have two different ways of doing the same thing, when we currently have two different ways (both useful) of doing two different things.

Yes, but in that case the user is explicitly telling Dorico to overwrite it. Is deleting a tuplet the same thing? When deleting a tuplet, is it fair to assume that the user would rather have the tuplet expanded to delete a note not in the tuplet, or better to delete the last note(s) of a tuplet? Either way is destructive. I’m pretty sure my preference would be to delete the final note(s) of the tuplet. As I’m actively editing the tuplet, it makes sense that any notes encompassed by the tuplet may be subject to edits or deletion; deleting a note not encompassed by the tuplet just doesn’t seem quite as logical to me.

It also seems a little odd that Dorico doesn’t treat notes and rests the same in the identical situation. Take the example of 2 triplet eighths followed by an eighth rest under the triplet, and then 2 eighths on the next beat. If I delete the triplet, the triplet eighths become eighths and only the rest at the end of the tuplet is deleted. This seems logical and desirable. If I have 3 triplet eighths, then deleting the triplet expands the triplet eighths to delete an eighth in the next beat. This is different behavior than if it ends with a rest, and doesn’t seem quite as logical to me. If I’m deleting a tuplet, I would rather not have to worry about notes not contained by the tuplet, and in some cases not even in the same bar.

I guess the catch is what do you do with 3 eighth note triplets followed by a rest on the next beat? In that case, it may be better to keep all 3 notes in order to be non-destructive, moving the final eighth over. I still think I would rather not move the final note of a tuplet over if it means a destructive edit of a note not encompassed by the tuplet.

If you have two quarters and you change the second to a dotted quarter, it will eat into the next rhythmic position. I don’t see the inconsistency…

Even if we accept that Dorico eats into the next position, its behaviour seems illogical in this example. If you delete the triplet sign, then the three eighths that were under it become regular eighth notes. So there’s no room for the third eighth note in the first bar any more, but when Dorico pushes it into the the next bar it still treats it as a triplet eighth rather than a reglular one. Under the triplet sign in the second bar, it should have a dot - then its duration would equal a regular eighth note. Alternatively, Dorico could break up the triplet in the second bar and show the new note as a regular eighth first.

If I had, for example a 7-tuplet of 16th notes on a beat in 4/4 time and I deleted the 7, I’d expect the first 4 notes to remain as 16ths, the next 3 to be overwritten, and nothing to be affected in the subsequent beats.

I can’t say this is how it “ought” to be, only that it’s how I feel it ought to be, and it trips me up every time it happens.

+1. This is the behavior I’d like as well, where the only destructive edits occur on the beat(s) that I’m actively editing.

Seems consistent to me.

[attachment=0]Screen Shot 2020-10-05 at 8.13.29 PM.png[/attachment]