I was searching for a setting for gaps after clefs. I (naively) just entered “clefs” in the jump bar and it offered the clefs-dialogues in notation options and engraving options. Unfortunately the option was ( kind of) hidden in spacing gaps.
I just thought that the jump bar could have really shined here if on the keyword “clefs” it also had suggested the spacing gaps dialogue. I further noticed that under cues there’s also a point clefs that can be found while searching in engraving options but not from the jump bar.
Are there any plans for the jump bar to look even deeper in the options dialogues in the future?
I daresay that there are plans for tighter integration. I would also imagine that reporting use cases like this where you expect one result and get another will be helpful to the devs so they can address these use cases. There has also been discussion about potentially broadening the scope of the jump bar to include properties and not just commands (which I hope they do). If I were a betting man, I’d bet that we will see many improvements on this front in the coming maintenance and “dot” releases. Considering this seems to be one of the most highly-praised new features, I doubt it will be left to rot.
Now imagine a world with chained jump commands. two second thought out example
If commands could be chained together via a comma like this for example, then you have an effective macro capability
To be useful the commands would need to go deeper per OT. These examples don’t presently exist
Some thought would have to be given to the insertion point management, for example here putting the dynamic in, where is the insertion point for that? A simple solution would be always the beginning insertion point, no matter what ops occur. This is used in the “slur+3” example too, the slur starting on insertion point and going up to 3 notes.
Bonus points for adding insertion point commands (such as insertion+4 (notes))
Implicit in the above example is tying together the exising popover command processor with the jump system. Add in insertion point management and chaining, and you have macros. Just bringing in all the existing popovers would be extra sauce, but by itself doesn’t have much value without the chaining.
Philosophically you could ask why have the existing popovers then? Answer could be for a focused dialog with a focused auto completion set.
I’m not sure how you’d address this but I’ll add another thought about the Jump bar (which is brilliant btw):
I can add pedal retakes and remove them using it, because that’s a function, but I can’t add pedal lines. I can do all three in the playing techniques popover, so what makes one thing a function, and one thing not? I love the jump bar, but there is a slight question mark over what it can actually do - is my quickest recourse always to press J, or do I need to first have a full understanding of what functions are covered by it?
(there’s me once more pushing for a universal popover ;))
EDIT - did not read that last bit Dan, great minds think alike
It could. Just asking: do you use w to go to the instrument counterpart? This is very fast and easy. And there are commands to go to the next/previous layout that are really useful.
I’m not saying your idea is not good, just checking out that you already know and use what’s already there (and I have built my workflow upon).
In full score, click on a note of the instrument you’d like to see on its own layout. Press w. Done.
PS: note that if you’re on the part layout, have a note selected and press w, it will bring you directly to the full score, where the note is selected. So it’s really convenient.
I’m more than a bit odd in that I have two sets of layouts, one for Flow 1 and one for Flow 2. I’ve found it easier when trying to print flows separately. Anyhoo, I’d just love to be able to skip to a layout number at the end and back. It’s not too hard to live with though. EDIT: I’ve just realised that because I have multiple Full Score layouts that the “w” doesn’t have the effect that it normally would - my own doing though.
