02-05-2020, 03:11 PM
+1 this request. Even for active patterns!
I suppose one issue is what behaviour would make sense in the case that the pattern currently being played is deleted. It makes sense to me that if an active pattern is deleted, then nerdseq should revert to the rule it would follow if we tell it to play an empty pattern field - search up to find the nearest 'island' and queue that for playing at the next sync point. Or maybe stop the track first then do the search up thing...
(Maybe the problem is due to implementation? If the 'now' and 'next' patterns are assumed to remain consistent, and the code depends on this assumption, then allowing deletion could mess things up. This could require something of a re-write, potentially effecting lots of other code which could end up being a massive job... only Thomas knows for sure
)
I suppose one issue is what behaviour would make sense in the case that the pattern currently being played is deleted. It makes sense to me that if an active pattern is deleted, then nerdseq should revert to the rule it would follow if we tell it to play an empty pattern field - search up to find the nearest 'island' and queue that for playing at the next sync point. Or maybe stop the track first then do the search up thing...
(Maybe the problem is due to implementation? If the 'now' and 'next' patterns are assumed to remain consistent, and the code depends on this assumption, then allowing deletion could mess things up. This could require something of a re-write, potentially effecting lots of other code which could end up being a massive job... only Thomas knows for sure
)