[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.0?
From: |
karl |
Subject: |
Re: 3.0? |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:23:49 +0100 (CET) |
Carl Peterson:
...
> I know someone suggested just turning off the PDF conversion to speed
> things up, but it's not just a matter of instantaneous aural feedback.
Ok.
> There's a visual component and a matter of input error reduction, because I
> have been known to enter incorrect octaves or durations and not realize it
> until I've finished typing and have compiled the entire score.
A quick-n-dirty test mode would probably solve your need, just to
check for typing errors and such (as you write above).
What should such a mode need/disregard, what speedups are possible for
such a test mode ?
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57
- 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Mike Solomon, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Graham Percival, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, karl, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Paul Morris, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?,
karl <=
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, karl, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Janek Warchoł, 2014/01/11
- Re: 3.0?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/11
- Re: 3.0?, Janek Warchoł, 2014/01/11
- Re: 3.0?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/11
- Re: 3.0?, karl, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Paul Morris, 2014/01/11