Guillaume Laurent wrote: > On Wednesday 06 August 2003 13:41, Chris Cannam wrote: > >> That's as may be, but it'd be simpler not to. It'd be very easy to >> have a dropdown for how detailed a metronome you want (bar only / >> every beat / every half beat / etc -- a recursive depth into the >> bar's subdivisions) though. Or settings like [...] > > I disagree. We already have everything we need to edit segments.
That's wrong in so many ways I just don't know where to begin. Most of the time, it's a big advantage that the metronome is more structured (and therefore simpler) than a full segment editor. You don't usually want to "play" a metronome, you just want to tell it to go. Even if you allow the user to edit the segment, then, you really also need to allow them to say "give me just the beats please" in one simple click. And if you're going to deny the user a dedicated GUI for doing that give-me-the-beats operation, on the grounds that they can edit a metronome segment in normal segment editors, then those normal segment editors will have to be enhanced to do the give-me-the- beats stuff too. And it has to be made obvious. And the same GUI has to contain the other dedicated metronome options (instrument, pitch etc), so you still end up with a dedicated metronome editor. And what editor do you suggest? Do you want a menu option on the main window: Edit metronome segment in [submenu: Matrix view / Notation view / Event view]? >> Generating it is surely much simpler if you're not bothered about >> allowing the user to hand-edit their own metronome segment. > > Again I don't see how. It's just a couple more segments in a > composition... OK, consider a piece that starts in 4/4 for two bars, then goes into a number of alternating bars of 5/8 and 3/4 and finally settles down in 6/8 with a closing 4/4 bar. What do you store in the composition? Then what do you do with it when the user replaces that 6/8 with a 3/4 and switches it to 4/4 a bit sooner? And whatever it is you do, how is that simpler than regenerating the whole thing? >> See if you're generating a segment, why bother making it a short >> repeating one at all? Why not just go from one end of the >> composition to the other, filling in notes at all the right times? > > Isn't that redoing what the sequencer does at playback time ? The sequencer just plays the notes, it doesn't decide when to play them. That's like saying we shouldn't bother storing the mapped events in any of the mapped segments for some reason that I can't begin to invent. Are you suggesting that drum patterns or scripted segments or whatever would also want to be computed on the sequencer side? I suggest we just have a simple method in the sequence manager that creates a segment, shoves the events in it using code somewhat like the function I just posted, maps it and then throws it away. Or it could get fancy and write the MappedEvents straight to the mmapped area without bothering with a segment. Whatever. Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
