Rockbox

Tasklist

FS#2604 - Adds wps tags for repeat modes

Attached to Project: Rockbox
Opened by David Dent (the_winch) - Saturday, 30 July 2005, 01:15 GMT
Last edited by Jonas Häggqvist (rasher) - Sunday, 21 August 2005, 20:03 GMT
Task Type Patches
Category Themes
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Operating System
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Adds the following wps tags.

Repeat mode tags:
%mf = repeat off
%ma = repeat all
%mo = repeat one
%ms = repeat shuffle

Example use in .wps file
%?mf<Off|%?ma<All|%?mo<One|%?ms<Shuffle>>>>
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jonas Häggqvist (rasher)
Sunday, 21 August 2005, 20:03 GMT
Reason for closing:  Accepted
Comment by David Dent (the_winch) - Monday, 01 August 2005, 05:21 GMT

Added tags to get the play mode. Play, pause, fast forward and rewind. I
think with this patch you can use all info in status bar on wps.

Repeat mode tags:
%mf = repeat off, returns f
%ma = repeat all, returns a
%mo = repeat one, returns o
%ms = repeat shuffle, returns s

Playback mode tags
%mp = play, returns p
%mu = pause, returns u
%mw = fastforward, returns w
%mb = fastbackward, returns b

Example use in .wps file
%?mf<off|%?ma<all|%?mo<once|%?ms<shuffle>>>>
%?mp<play|%?mu<pause|%?mw<f forward|%?mb<f back>>>>
Comment by David Dent (the_winch) - Monday, 01 August 2005, 15:33 GMT

Added tags for hold and remote hold.

%mh = hold, returns h
%mr = remote hold, returns r
Comment by Jonas Häggqvist (rasher) - Sunday, 21 August 2005, 18:55 GMT

Is there any reason why you're not using a single tag like
%rm (repeat mode), returning a, o, s or "not defined"?
Comment by David Dent (the_winch) - Sunday, 21 August 2005, 19:56 GMT

I used separate tags so it would work with conditionals since they only test
for a returned value not what the value is.
If I used a single tag you would be stuck with the value returned.

Is this correct or am I missing something?
Comment by Jonas Häggqvist (rasher) - Sunday, 21 August 2005, 20:03 GMT

That's true, but exposes a more generic problem (that you
can't test for the value of a variable).

I can't say I like the way you solved it (I'd much rather a
more generic conditional was implemented), but I understand
the reason.

Anyway, I see that the patch was committed. Marking this as
such.

Loading...