Re: an LM update

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:31:54AM +0100, James E. Bailey wrote:
> I realise it's only been a week since this was last discussed, but:
> a) no one who can say whether or not this can be implemented has  
> responded (ever)

Yes, this can be implemented.

I have no clue how complicated this may be, but due to
Church-Turing thesis and C++'s Turing-completeness, it is possible
to implement it.

> c) Can we just make the change so that more people aren't confused by  
> the issue. (I've answered another question related to this in the last 
> week)

Yes, please do.  Carl can help you get started as a Frog; we
desperately need more people writing patches for such problems.

> While we're on the subject, can I put in my two cents that voices don't 
> just up and die when they don't have anything to do? Having to keep 
> voices alive is sometimes annoying.

There's probably good reasons why dying voices are good, but I
can't see anybody objecting to a special #'keep-alive property.
Looking forward to your patch for this!

Cheers,
- Graham