On Monday 06 Oct 2003 8:20 am, Richard Bown wrote: > What's your suggestion? And are you working on it or just talking > about it?
At this point I'm just talking about it. From a code point of view my preference is for (b), the instrument-based studio thing. Maybe. I'm not sure about the implementation of (a) at the sequencer side -- it seems troublesome to me, though I'm a bit too tired right now to think through it properly. It may be that there's no problem and specifying the channel and maybe even the bank and program too would be easy, or it may be that getting an event with no instrument but predefined device and channel from rosegardensequencer to AlsaDriver would be a really gross hack. (b) is also probably more consistent with the rest of our GUI, in which we don't generally refer to channels, programs etc explicitly by number if we can help it. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether the user wants to specify an instrument (which would have to be one of the existing ones used for other tracks, or else the default metronome instrument with no option to change the program/channel setup unless we made special GUI for that) or a channel (which would mean they'd have to rely on their synth's percussion channel or else set the synth separately for the program they wanted). Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
