[Linuxsampler-devel] [linuxsampler] Latest CVS Commit

[Rui N. C. <rn...@rn...>]

Hi,

linuxsampler 0.2.x:

* Changed LSCPServer::LoadInstrument() signature, which adds a new
  boolean argument (bool bBackground) where the loading mode maybe
  selected, whether modal (the default), or modeless (in background).

This means that the LOAD INSTRUMENT command is back to the old modal
behavior, and the new LOAD_BACKGROUND INSTRUMENT just waits to be
implemented. These will be the intended mappings:

  LOAD INSTRUMENT <file> <index> <channel>
     -> LoadInstrument(file, index, channel, false);

  LOAD_BACKGROUND INSTRUMENT <file> <index> <channel>
     -> LoadInstrument(file, index, channel, true);

So, I'll ask the you lex/yacc gurus to put it to work asap :)

OTOH, this post of mine didn't get to the list, AFAICT, so I'll repeat it
here...

Hi Vladimir,
Christian,
Simon,
everybody

About the LOAD INSTRUMENT command, I've been doing simple implementation
changes (see attached patch). However I've stumbled on the
(f)lex/yacc/bison mysteries.

The fault is that my flex and bison installed packages probably aren't up
to par--they fail miserably while doing `make parser` under src/network.
I've give up for now.

My patch does try to implement the background mode for the LOAD
INSTRUMENT. However, I've bee trying to implement the following syntax:

    LOAD INSTRUMENT <filename> <index> <channel> BACKGROUND

where I've introduced the BACKGROUND token to flag the modeless option.
I've noticed that Vladimir suggested a new LOAD_BACKGROUND verb instead of
an optional trailing particle like me. Of course, I prefer mine, but our
dictator must be heard ;)

Either way, the main change, which I think is about to stay, goes in 
lscpserver.h/cpp, where I added a new boolean argument to
LSCPServer::LoadInstrument method (bool bBackground), where one opts for
the precise loading mode (default is false, that is modal).

Please try the patch and please help me on putting that damned flex/bison
stuff to work.

About the new quoting requirements, I'm all for it. Incidentally I was
predicting that myself, the bare proof is that liblscp implementation is
already prepared on parsing quoted responses. It even does not matter if
are single (') our double (").

However I personally find this new quoting requirement rather strange.
Forgive my lex/yacc ignorance, but is it really unavoidable? Is it really
impossible having a syntax where a token is distinguishable from a
arbitrary literal value? Is it a lex/yacc fundamental limitation or what? 
I'd rather have quotes optional, and only required where strictly
necessary, like e.g. in comma-separated list items.

Bye now.
-- 
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rn...@rn...