plutonia wrote:jo, ghost copies are a feature i wouldn't use. it encourages repetition rather than developing parts.
You don't have to
And copying parts via drag-drop indeed makes unique parts as discussed some years ago.
One thing is sure: I will not abandon the 'shared sequence' feature. To me that's an essential feature. Cfr pljones example.
Another example: Imagine a composition with lots of music going one. One of the tracks is a hihat track with many parts. Some parts are shared sequence parts others are unique sequence parts. I use the shared sequence parts for the 'main' hihat patterns, the unique sequence parts for the special fills and breaks. Now imagine i want to change something to a main hihat pattern. Then if i would not have the shared sequences parts i would have to copy that change to each and every instance of that same pattern! That's not ok. To me shared sequence parts are essential. And yes maybe they support repetition, but that's only a choice. If you don't want that, don't use/do it.
I don't want to be stubborn or close-minded, i'm simply 100% convinced that being able to use shared sequence parts is an essential feature
If you don't agree with that, MuLab is not the best tool for you.
That said i'm open to optimize the split function where necessary, but only within the context of including the shared sequence part concept.
i also think that the split feature as it stands is troublesome and over complicated. a simple split that then showed only the notes within the split part in the note editor would be far preferable for me. i really do not see any point in the notes from other bars in the part being seen in the note editor.
If you have a shared sequence part and you split it, then i think it would be unexpected and inconsistent behavior that the new split part (the new right one) would be automatically converted to a unique part and that it is also trimmed to to the played section only.