From: Touillaud Nicolas <Nicolas.Touillaud_at_fr.thalesgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:45:22 +0200

I see you point.
I will only make sens *if* the same process is used for the menues and the
folders (1 file in ram). It can speed up the hover function but make the
creation/update process more complexe (not to mention total modification of
a working code... What a waste).
I doubt this is such a good idea after all :)

One more question: why isn't the voice file (and the scripts for talkbox...)
included with the daily builds, or at least easier to find on the site ? I
imagine this is because there is no official release with the voice stuff,
but am I right ?

Thank you for your efforts !
Nicolas

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [IDC]Dragon [mailto:idc-dragon_at_gmx.de]
Envoyé : jeudi 1 avril 2004 16:11
À : Rockbox development
Objet : RE: Installing Talkbox

> And about the bitswapping thing... Can the talkbox part benefit from
> such a change in the .direname.xxx approach ?

We could have this new dirname file bitswapped, but woudn't gain much. Then
it's really a proprietary file format, not playable by WinAmp or whatever.
Plus you'd need extra tooling to generate it.

Jörg
_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2004-04-01