From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:52:14 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, [IDC]Dragon wrote:

> > I don't see how we can have them in the same array without wasting
> > strings.
>
> Again, by assigning negative values to them in the enum, growing further
> into the negative range.

Yes, that would work. We could also just OR 0x8000 or something suitably large
to make them end up in a different range of values.

Either way, the fact that it is negative or has 0x8000 set could be used to
determine if it is a voice-only string.

> OK. But still I have that problem with 2 sets, one for potentially voiced
> strings, another for voice only entries.

Right, we can't have it that way. We need to have unique identifiers for each
voice string.

> Hmm, it just appeared to me that negative is not so good either, because I
> use the upper bits of the ID to indicate numbers and units, with the value
> in the lower bits. Very useful for option entries with numbers, so I still
> need only one ID to speak the full thing. (Are you with me?) I could modify
> this to not use the MSB, so negative is free.

We could easily make them start at 0x1000 or so instead if that makes it less
intrusive on the existing code.

> Well, then empty their voice content, too. In other words: a voice-only
> entry is one which has empty text, but a voice content.

True. I'll go with that.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox

Received on 2004-03-30