Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Jensen) writes: > >> Yes, this is a valid point. Unfortunately, I think it will be a lot of >> work implementing something that works all around. It sounds like a >> unmarked-tracks-are-invisible type of feature, I think that is the >> closest to Anthony's original feature request. It could be another >> type of mark, but as I said I doubt it is necessary. (See below.) > > I still think the intra-playlist queue idea is an okay one.
Okay. I'm still having problems thinking about it. I guess I need a real example to see how it's like. >> Well, making tracks invisible is not strictly necessary >> either ... > > I use that feature far too seldom. I should make a habit > out of using it sporadically just to prevent bit rot. Ah, but I meant the imaginary feature I described above, not the sectioning/collapsing. But you are right, you should use it more! >> Since Anthony's feature will probably not be included in Bongo, here >> is my advice (pun intended) to Anthony: [snipped] > > Cool. This should go on EmacsWiki. I'll add it to the BongoHacks page. >> Why have multiple playlists? They can't be playing at the same time. > > Sure they can. This possibility might not be that useful --- > in fact, it might even be good if playing in one playlist > automatically paused all others --- but it does exist already. Ah. I didn't know. But I guess this is not a feature, rather an accident of implementation? On second thought, maybe it might be an idea to not change it. I'm sure somebody can think of a way to use this behaviour. > What would it mean for a playlist to be `active'? I mean that there would be only one playlist at a time. Maybe as a minor mode? Yeah, you're right that this is probably what `bongo-prefer-library-buffers' is for. I'll have to think more about how it's not exactly the same. _______________________________________________ bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bongo-devel
