Re: [bongo-devel] Re: Marks

[Daniel Brockman]

address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:

> Daniel Brockman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> address@hidden (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>
>>> a) we should leave the marks after commands (customizable),
>>
>> Why?  I think in the most common use case, you will mark
>> some tracks, run some command on them, and then no longer
>> care about the marking.  That suggests that the default
>> behavior should be to have commands "use up" the marking.
>
> Ah well, that was my original plan. I must be tired,

Who could blame you, really, at 5:20 AM?

I feel like sleeping a bit myself, to tell you the truth.

> because I thought you wanted the marks there like they are now.
> Let's change that one to "we should remove the marks after
> commands" then.

Okay, good.

>>> c) Unmarking all saves the marks, or we can have a separate command.
>>> d) We use the `* *' command because it's handy.
>>
>> Having an unmark all command separate from `* *' would
>> be redundant, I think.
>
> Other commands would unmark everything, that was
> what I meant.

Are you talking about commands like `e' here?

> I agree it's a little redundant (but sometimes it's good
> to have more than one way to do things.)

I won't argue with that, except to say that it's more useful
to have more than one way to do something the more different
the different ways actually are.

>>> I'm profiling the code, and I see bottlenecks in
>>> `bongo-line-internal-infoset' and `bongo-line-get-property'.
>>> The latter is called a lot of times all over the place.
>>> We could use a little optimization here.
>>
>> Interesting.
>
> I don't have a plan for this now, though.

That's okay.  We're moving pretty fast, so now might not be
the optimal time for optimizing anyway.

Aren't I in a fun mood?

-- 
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>