On dc, 2008-05-28 at 12:05 +0200, David García Garzón wrote: > I liked the idea at first instance. But looking at that screenshot i find it > very messing for the user. What's the difference between the first and the > second oscilloscope? The first one is creating a linked processing while the > second one is about connecting to an existing one. I don't have a solution on > that but let's mature an idea. > > One solution could add multilevel menu 'connect to' or 'create linked', or > just one of them while keeping the other in the first level.
I like this option, because we can have MANY processings in the canvas, while the available sinks remain small > Or providing a > dialog interface for choosing the connected ports. Or showing > the 'processing.port' in a single level. I am not that convinced on any of > the solutions. Any ideas? > > BTW, 'f' is typeid(CLAM::TData).name() for gcc (non portable), so i think > that > should be expressed in that way. It is more self explanatory and also strong > to changes on the way of representing typeid's names which are not standard. Sure! (Natanael you can patch this) P > David. > > > On Dimecres 28 Maig 2008, Natanael Olaiz wrote: > > This idea took me more time that I expected, so I didn't improve a few > > ugly copy&paste testings yet. :-/ > > Here is the patch and a screenshot. It works, but probably the code > > could be improved and I need to check the names... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Clam-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel _______________________________________________ Clam-devel mailing list [email protected] https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel
