On Thursday 04 Jan 2007 20:13, Pieter Nagel wrote: > Is this approach sound, or is there a reason old instruments are kept > around forever?
Hm. Historically speaking, the instrument sort of predates the device. The device was devised as sort of a loose federation of instruments, with instruments being the things that are created at the sequencer and just happening to end up in a particular device based on the number of instruments expected for each device. The sequencer process determines what instruments are available, not the GUI -- the GUI just asks the sequencer to create instruments if it finds it needs some more when loading a file. Actually, that probably is the reason why instruments aren't deleted -- the GUI doesn't have any way to delete the information about instruments that is held in the sequencer. That said, it's not quite clear to me why we would want instruments to be deleted in this case. You can have more than one track set to the same instrument, and you might legitimately want to set a track to one instrument, delete the track, and subsequently set a different track to the same instrument you were using for that one. It seems on first sight that the answer is to iterate through the available _tracks_ sending program changes for their instruments, rather than iterating through the available _instruments_. That's assuming that the program changes are sent individually from the GUI (which knows about tracks) rather than the sequencer (which doesn't). Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
