Henry S. Thompson writes:
Not sure -- as I said I did this by comparing with gnu emacs,
Curiosity kills cats, they say, but it also destroys confidence in
coders (I don't know whether the coders in question are the ALSA guys
or the GNUbies, though). ALSA dox are internally contradictory,
and don't seem to much care about explaining what ALSA design is
(despite the labels :-( ). They seem to think that a sparsely
commented .h file is a design document.
which also takes a _lot_ more care about buffering and such.
AFAIK GNU doesn't have anything like lstreams. Unless you mean that
they have some device for playing in the background? (I think that
SXEmacs does, but I don't know exactly what that means, they may fork
a separate player process or something.)
So I suspect that it _is_ waiting,
To be honest, I wouldn't consider that to be a very Advanced LSA. ;)
My understanding of "blocking" is that these functions block until
somebody else holding a lock on the device releases it, not until
playback is complete. But the locking is internal to ALSA so who
but I don't see an alternative, given that it does appear that
closing the device before returning is the existing behaviour. . .
I suppose so. I wonder if ^G interrupts a long-playing sound?
> you shouldn't "sign" it
Ah, sorry -- that's just my habit so if I come back to this in a month
I see what's my fault. . . Feel free to edit that out!
Oh, OK. I certainly will, but I thought you had commit access. (Why
don't you?! ;-)
If you're just submitting patches, though, do whatever makes you
comfortable. If you remember and feel like editting the patch, great!
Saves us some work. But do submit the patch, editted or not. :-)
XEmacs-Beta mailing list