On 24/03/06, Brandon Low <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yer a smart one. :) > > I hoep you keep noodling on this while we're all busy doing 3.0 :) ye, thats why im playing with it.. figured i may aswell do something while everyone else is getting ready for 3.0
> > On Fri, 03/24/06 at 12:08:47 +1100, Jonathan Gordon wrote: > > maybe we do a simple last button cache thing? > > i.e if button == last_button then start the loop at the last i.. > > of, even just cache the last return_code and return that imediatly.. i > > think that would work? > > > > On 24/03/06, Brandon Low <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Scroll events happen frequently enough to be worth concern, as do > > > button_repeat events... > > > > > > Darn those remote controls. > > > > > > Brandon > > > > > > On Thu, 03/23/06 at 14:45:07 +0100, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote: > > > > Brandon Low wrote: > > > > > I think that button processing can't be going through lists like that, > > > > > too slow. > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure. Buttons are pressed rather rarely (from a system/cpu > > > > point of view) and the lag cause by looping through a few dozen entries > > > > will probably not be measurable, let alone noticeable. > > > > > > > > The case for using variable button mapping is mainly driven by the fact > > > > that irivers can have several different remote controls, and change > > > > between then in runtime. Handling that requires more flexibility than > > > > #defines can provide. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Bj?rn > > > >
