--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Matt Giuca <matt.gi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but the comment was about bank selection (and that it
> was hard-coded to channel 10, or 9 if counting from 0).
> Given that your patch no longer hard-codes channel 10, how
> does it handle bank selection for drum channels?
My patch does away with " == 9", by using the added field is_drum_channel. It
doesn't really change anything regarding "bank selection" previously in FS.
Sure I added a touch of change on XG MSB bank select based on "dum select"
comment in the code, doesn't have anything to do with the hard-coded " == 9".
> Right, so the implementation can do whatever it wants -- it
> isn't specified. But that is a policy decision that it
> seems like FS hasn't made yet, one way or the other
> (hence the presence of this comment). By removing the
> comment, you are effectively committing to a particular
> policy decision.
I can leave that comment if it really make any difference.
> I am saying that either a) the comment should remain in the
> program, in some form (modified to describe the new
> situation after the drum patch, but still giving developers
> an idea of the as-yet-unmade policy decision), or b) the FS
> developers need to commit to a particular policy (such as
> "FS will ignore bank change commands when in GM
> mode" or "FS will go out of GM mode if a bank
> change occurs"), change the code to match that
> decision, and then remove the comment. In other words, the
> comment shouldn't simply disappear without an active
> decision, rather than just "it happens to work this way
> now."
>
>
>
> Matt
The code has been working this way all along, no behavior changes regarding FS
handling of GM-mode bank select in anyway, with or without that comment.
I will leave that part of the comment back in there.
Jimmy
_______________________________________________
fluid-dev mailing list
fluid-dev@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
