Time Signature popover for beat groupings, like 5/4

The manuals show the popover entry style like this:

  • Enter the division you want in square brackets into the popover.For example, to divide a 7/8 time signature into 2+3+2, enter [2+3+2]/8 into the popover. To divide a 5/4 time signature into 2+3 rather than 3+2, enter [2+3]/4 into the popover.

I enter (2+3)/4 into the popover, it seems to work the same. Is it the same as using square brackets?

Parentheses are not Brackets.


Parentheses are used in the Shift+M popover to denote that the resulting time signature should be hidden, but the parentheses need to go around the whole time signature and not only the numerator or denominator for this to take effect.

Ok. However, 3+2/4 appears to be taken as valid input the same as [3+2]/4. If I remember my situation correctly from last month.
If it should not be, then it’s a bug. If it is fine, then it should be documented.

I wouldn’t have noticed that using 3+2/4 was not correct input according to documentation, except that I was digging into a confusing beam grouping behavior in a specific measure (that is a separate topic).

If I try to enter shift-M (3+2)/4, it is rejected. Unlike shift-M [3+2]/4 which correctly renders as 5/4. What makes you think the former is accepted as valid?

I had this problem maybe 2 months ago, which is approximately equivalent to one century in an academic calendar, and also before I rewrote the score to use separate time signature sequence of 3/4|2/4|3/4|2/4|… etc. So, I forget the exact detail now, other than, there is some unexpected behavior going on with entering a time signature of 3+2/4 (or any other x+y/z) and the manual’s documentation did not reflect what I entered and what I got. I edited my post above to perhaps reflect the original confusion.

Which just adds confusion to anyone reading the whole thread and makes response look idiotic for apparently answering a different question. I think you need to be explicit about this supposed mis-match between Dorico behaviour and the documentation. For my part it is perfectly clear and works as expected.

I think you need to step off. If you don’t comprehend a thread then you need not reply. You are not on the development team. The development team reads these messages and can draw their own conclusions or test cases from user feedback.

You also need not reply assuming everything is from your own limited perspective (“For my part it is perfectly clear and works as expected.”). Again, the development team can draw their own conclusions since they are the experts on their own software, and you do not speak for them.

This is a discussion board, so anyone is free to comment.
As you say, the development team reads these messages, and they have shown they give each post the attention it deserves.


Janus and Derrek are both long-standing members of this forum. Their responses to various queries have helped me as well as many others. I have benefitted greatly from their contributions as well as their experience and insight into how Dorico works and their explanations of the intricacies and finer points of music notation. To have them suspended would be doing a disservice to the whole Dorico community.