emms-help
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [emms-help] Changing the way emms-next and emms-prev work


From: Jorgen Schaefer
Subject: Re: [emms-help] Changing the way emms-next and emms-prev work
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:52:25 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

[Yoni accidentally sent this in private, hence full quote]

Yoni Rabkin Katzenell <address@hidden> writes:

> Jorgen Schaefer <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Yoni Rabkin Katzenell <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> `emms-next' and friends skip to the next song and start playing even if
> >> Emms is currently stopped.
> >
> > That's what I would expect them to do.
>
> That is not what I would expect them to do. Not in the core anyway.

Maybe you are confused as to what the functions do?

emms-next
    Start playing the next track in the EMMS playlist.
emms-playlist-select-next
    Select the next track in the playlist.
emms-playlist-next
    Move to the next track in the current buffer.

> > Do you think those should go into the core? They seem to be more
> > appropriate for the playlist mode.
>
> I think that the facilities to move should go into the core since you
> should be able to move forward or back regardless of the visual
> representation.

The ability to move _is_ in the core, as you can see above :-)

> I personally think that a core function should not implicitly change the
> state of the player, only explicitly. If I want to advance and play from
> the core I need to (emms-next) and then (emms-start). That is what makes
> them core functions and not high-level user-interface functions.
>
> On the other hand, you use the core functions as the user-interface so
> it really is subjective.

Indeed.

In the default setup, it is quite useless to move the "selected
track" without playing anything, because there's no feedback on
what the selected track is.

> We fixed the old emms-pbi mode to keep the playing state.

I don't understand. I never used pbi, could you elaborate on what
you meant by that?

> I see no reason to have it work differently now. Only that now
> we can fix it at the core level by removing the decision from
> the core and putting it into the hands of whomever writes
> user-level functions.
>
> Anyone else want to weigh in on the matter?

Greetings,
        -- Jorgen

-- 
((email . "address@hidden") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/";)
 (gpg   . "1024D/028AF63C")   (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]