[nama] Re: Runtime limit

  • From: "S. Massy" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Julien Claassen <julien@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:32:13 -0400

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:07:06PM +0200, Julien Claassen wrote:
> Hey you two1
>   I was thinking, while reading, yes it's sometiems possible. :-)
> Why not change the already partly existing mechanism slightly and
> combine everything:
> cache_track [<mark1>] [<mark2>]
> mixdown [<mark1>] [<mark2>]
>   with the semantics being: If used without parameters operate as
> usual, including the precautions for null input sources, using the
> longest track length in the cache/mixdown group plus the specified
> extra time. When used with one mark, mark the end. When used with
> two marks, teh marks mean start and end. How about that? It would
> save us extra commands, with the programming cost of implementing
> extra behaviour in one go. Well, it could probably be deligated to
> the grammar.
This would cover most cases and is fine by me. I still think a begin and
end mark should be defined automatically for the sake of simplicity and
consistency. 

>   The uncertainty about the END mark and the extra time or the
> cache_track problematic leads me back to my old project of sifting
> through the online help. The weekend is coming up and I've just
> passed an exam, so there should be the time for that at least,
Good on you!

> before I continue to work hard for the next one. :-) The start is
> still here on disk. I just have to elaborate on it.
Yes, this has been on my "would like to do" list for quite some time now
as well.

BTW, you probably will see it on LAU anyway, but I (finally) published
the article on Nama I wrote in June: it won't be anything new to you,
fellows, but you still might find bits and pieces of some interest.

Cheers,
S.M.

Other related posts: