On Friday 06 June 2003 02:54 am, you wrote: > On Friday 06 June 2003 2:43 am, Levi Burton wrote: > > Attached is the better, cleaner patch. This patch assumes the first > > was applied. > > I've tested this out and there's a little inconsistency with the patch. > If track 1 is selected and you have segments on (say) track 3, 5 and 6 and > copy them - then select a new track and paste, the new segments are pasted > relative to the initial gap between track 1 and track 3 (the first > segment). You kind of expect the first segment to be pasted into the > selected track i.e. this mechanism to ignore the selected track when > copying.
Your right. Second patch is broken. The first patch should not have this behavior. I guess the third time is the charm? I know exactly what you're talking about because it was a little tricky figuring out how to avoid that problem. So now I wonder what is going wrong in patch #2. I guess getMinTrackId() does not do as I thought? Or, I could just be completely retarded? > R -- Levi Burton http://www.puresimplicity.net/~ldb/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The best thread debugger on the planet. Designed with thread debugging features you've never dreamed of, try TotalView 6 free at www.etnus.com. _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
