Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Re: what to use for max duration?

[Chris C. <ca...@al...>]

Silvan wrote:
> On Thursday 29 May 2003 04:31 am, Chris Cannam wrote:
>>perhaps.  Or even
>>   [0   <>]  to  [100 <>]
> 
> That one, I think.  Or how about, so I don't have to rearrange the entire 
> layout again
> 
> From [0 <>]
> To   [0 <>]

Possibly, though I had thought rearranging the spinboxes into a row
might help with some of the other problems with that layout by allowing
the options to be stacked vertically instead of squished horizontally.
But perhaps not.

>>   [ ] Controller
>>
>>       Number [in range      v] [0  <>] to [100 <>]
>>       Value  [outside range v] [40 <>] to [127 <>]
> 
> If you insist on eating the entire screen with another enormous dialog I 
> guess.  Have to consider how "in range" might be translated too...
> 
> [outside range v]
> [in range      v]
> [dentro del alcance de v]
> [afuera del alcance de v]

True.  I considered "within" and "outside", but again we're getting a
little unobvious.  (I didn't consider "within" and "without".)

> [x] not
> [x] no
> [x] non
> [x] no
> [x] non
> [x] nicht (?)
> [x] nyet (?  OK, that's transliterated, but you get the idea)

I think several of those are translations of "no", not "not".  Which
makes for another point: in many languages you can't comfortably say
"not" without a verb or preposition.  (Chinese, for example, although
I don't think the same space constraints apply to adding a preposition
if it's a single Chinese character.  But actually isn't it the case
in French as well?)

> Plus my "not" is more clear than Cakewalk's "exc." which is just as ugly.

That's true.

> you're the boss, Jefe.

No, I'm not.  I'm just some guy talking about this in the pub.

Not that I'm in the pub, I should add.

More's the pity.


Chris