[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: > Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: >> >>> a) we should leave the marks after commands (customizable), >> >> Why? I think in the most common use case, you will mark >> some tracks, run some command on them, and then no longer >> care about the marking. That suggests that the default >> behavior should be to have commands "use up" the marking. > > Ah well, that was my original plan. I must be tired,
Who could blame you, really, at 5:20 AM? I feel like sleeping a bit myself, to tell you the truth. > because I thought you wanted the marks there like they are now. > Let's change that one to "we should remove the marks after > commands" then. Okay, good. >>> c) Unmarking all saves the marks, or we can have a separate command. >>> d) We use the `* *' command because it's handy. >> >> Having an unmark all command separate from `* *' would >> be redundant, I think. > > Other commands would unmark everything, that was > what I meant. Are you talking about commands like `e' here? > I agree it's a little redundant (but sometimes it's good > to have more than one way to do things.) I won't argue with that, except to say that it's more useful to have more than one way to do something the more different the different ways actually are. >>> I'm profiling the code, and I see bottlenecks in >>> `bongo-line-internal-infoset' and `bongo-line-get-property'. >>> The latter is called a lot of times all over the place. >>> We could use a little optimization here. >> >> Interesting. > > I don't have a plan for this now, though. That's okay. We're moving pretty fast, so now might not be the optimal time for optimizing anyway. Aren't I in a fun mood? -- Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bongo-devel
