Interval command/addition?

This does not seem robust enough at all.  What about autofollow cues? Many people name them a .1 (or .6, or .9, or .somethingweird)  Should EOS treat those differently than a non autofollow cue? How would I tell the board what to do? What about where numbers were skipped? Same questions. I think it's a good idea, but It would get really complicated to express on the command line, and the eos software doesn't really have a good dialog interface to do a wizardy thing.  Also, Offset makes much more sense than + for the command syntax

I agree with all your points. [Offset] is a much better syntax for what I'm proposing. As for autofollow cues, skipped cues and the like, I don't think it should treat them any differently. If you choose to use the proposed "offset" feature, everything falls into that interval regardless. Its not a perfect solution but right now the only way to change numbers is to do it manually for each cue. This idea could at least get programmers half way.

The problem came from a programmer who after several years of adding .x and .xx cues to the annual holiday show, wanted to renumber the whole thing. The only way to do that now is to do each cue individually. To help him out I gave him a macro where all he would need to do is type in the new cue numbers as each cue was moved to the new cue list, easier but still over hundreds of key strokes.

The other example of where this would be useful is during tech. (and this happens to me all the time) Let's say we program Cue 621 and 622. The director comes over and wants to add 4 cues in between that page long sequence, but since the director is standing there we don't waste time moving cues around, we just program them as 621.1 + .2 + .3 +.4. Director walks away to restage or something else. Currently here's the keystroke sequence to move those four cues into their new rightful place.

(First you have to figure out where the last cue is) [Cue] 6 2 2 [Copy to] [Copy to] 6 2 6 [Enter] [Last] [Copy to] [Copy to] 6 2 5 [Enter] [Last] [Copy to] [Copy to] 6 2 4 [Enter] [Last] [Copy to] [Copy to] 6 2 3 [Enter] [Last] [Copy to] [Copy to] 6 2 2 [Enter]

That whole command sequence could be: [Cue] 6 2 1 [Thru] 6 2 2 [Copy to] [Copy to] 6 2 1 [Offset] 1 [Enter] 

In the example above, that's 38 key strokes versus 17. Every cue you add to that sequence adds approx. 7 keystrokes to the current way.  It doesn't add any to the proposed way. 

While it's not a perfect solution, and wouldn't work in all cases (as suggested above with autofollows and different cue numbering conventions) It would certainly be another tool to use to cut down on keystrokes.

Whereas the programmer above would currently have to do thousands of keystrokes manually or hundreds with a macro, this suggestion takes his key strokes down to under 20 to get done what he needed to. 

i agree with carl that it would be helpful to have something like this, and while i also agree that the syntax with offset is understandable, i don't see the problem with naming conventions. i guess, someone who treasures their point cues .57 and .98 and.14 or whatever their systems suggest, they would either refrain from using the renumbering syntax or use it only for cue ranges that donßt have special point cues.

but i think, the renumbering should also renumber link targets and (and here it might get complicated) show control...

cheers, ueli

ps: carl, would you mind sharing, what's in the macro?

Ueli, some people hold very dear to their naming/numbering conventions.... For example, I only let the stage manager call whole numbers or in a pinch .5s only. So if the SM sees a .1 or a .9 on the screen, they automatically know it's a follow cue. So the downside is that renumbering would cause a programmer like me to only do certain ranges at a time, and not a whole list. The upside is, it's still better than doing each cue individually.....

Which brings me to my new Macro! Here's the macro and instructions: (It's the easiest way I can think of to do this. )

Note: This Macro assumes your main cue list is 1/ and 2/ does not exist.

Step 1: Create MACRO x as the following:
Macro_Loop_Begin Cue 1 / <Enter>
Cue Copy_To Copy_To Cue 2 / Wait_For_Input <Enter>
<Enter>
Macro_Loop_End

Step 2: Type in your first cue number and enter (i.e. Cue 1 / 1 <Enter> )

Step 3: Run Macro. It will pause and wait for you to enter the new cue number.
Note: Use the <Macro> button instead of the <Enter> button after entering the new cue destination number.

Your first couple key strokes after running the macro should be: 1 <Macro> 2 <Macro> 3 <Macro> etc.

This macro also moves the cues instead of copies them. That way if you lose your place you know where to start. Speaking of which if you make a mistake, just press <Escape> and make your fix. The <Undo> command works perfectly here. Once your mistake is corrected, just start the macro again and pick up where you left off. The macro always defaults to cue list 1/ (or whatever you set it to) so even if you go to cue list 2/ to see what your last number is you can just run the macro from there.

I ran the macro today with about 300 cues and it took me a little more than 5 minutes, so while it's not a perfect solution, it's the shortest amount of keystrokes i can possibly think of that work on the Ion.

u know, i'm one of those with a numbering convention too, but i guess that's the downside. one'll just have to find a balance of the pros and cons...

but that macro is pretty neat. ilike