On 09/22/2014 04:26 AM, Bill Y. wrote: > The only counter point I could see is if some one wanted to implement > math interactions between automation tracks. AKA you create a "wave" > in one automation track and wanted it to add to or subtract from > another automation tracks "wave" to create a blend of the two. > Currently new automation overrides old automation so we can't do this > anyhow, but if some one wanted to implement a feature like this in the > future it would be more difficult.
Why would it? I don't see how this would affect the difficulty of implementing automation equations at all. You'd just equate two tracks instead of two patterns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
