[gmpi] Re: 3.8. Events Req 25 eventorder
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:09:31 -0800
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:17:06AM +0100, Robert Fehse wrote:
> I am thinking of a sequenced note which is running in a cycle where the note
> off has the virtual (because of the cycle jump)
> same timestamp as it's own note on.
In this case, the sender should be sending the off before the on, and a
stable sort is still correct.
I'm not saying a stable sort is ALWAYS right - if you have multiple
senders to one receiver, you can't guarantee to get it right, since that
involves actual meaning and intent.
The best we can do is provide a fixed guideline for expected behavior.
And I think that it makes sense to say that events are sorted in timestamp
order, with events for the same timestamp sorted by the order received.
If this is wrong for a plugin, the plugin should handle it internally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
