On 24/03/06, Brandon Low <lostlogic@lostlogicx.com> wrote:
> Yer a smart one.
:)
>
> I hoep you keep noodling on this while we're all busy doing 3.0 :)
ye, thats why im playing with it.. figured i may aswell do something
while everyone else is getting ready for 3.0

>
> On Fri, 03/24/06 at 12:08:47 +1100, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> > maybe we do a simple last button cache thing?
> > i.e if button == last_button then start the loop at the last i..
> > of, even just cache the last return_code and return that imediatly.. i
> > think that would work?
> >
> > On 24/03/06, Brandon Low <lostlogic@lostlogicx.com> wrote:
> > > Scroll events happen frequently enough to be worth concern, as do
> > > button_repeat events...
> > >
> > > Darn those remote controls.
> > >
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > > On Thu, 03/23/06 at 14:45:07 +0100, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> > > > Brandon Low wrote:
> > > > > I think that button processing can't be going through lists like that,
> > > > > too slow.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure. Buttons are pressed rather rarely (from a system/cpu point of view) and the lag cause by looping through a few dozen entries will probably not be measurable, let alone noticeable.
> > > >
> > > > The case for using variable button mapping is mainly driven by the fact that irivers can have several different remote controls, and change between then in runtime. Handling that requires more flexibility than #defines can provide.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bj?rn
> > >
>
Received on Fri Mar 24 06:13:33 2006