Elena [service address] wrote:
I noticed just now the presence of this workaround code putting my nose in argyll sources. But since scrutinizing too much people's code causes me big headaches, I didn't understand whether is it already active, or it will be in 1.3.3 or not. Interestingly enough, I noticed that your approach has some similarities to what I was suggesting. It would be interesting to test it to see how it performs...
Yes, this was an attempt to deal with the sorts of problems we have been discussing. It has not been part of the compiled code for some years though, and would take some effort to re-merge. There have been a number of changes that would require significant work. Graeme Gill.