Merged
Conversation
Member
|
The idea behind these comments was to eventually implement error recovery when seeking. A seek can fail and if we seek in a mix of two songs we can end up with one having successfully seeked and the other failing and staying at its original position. The commented code would make it so we would undo the seek in the first song if the second failed. Looking at it now that is really unnecessary and over-complicated as it would require wrapping everything in TrackPosition to make it seekable. So yes we can strip these out. A good followup would be implementing seek for these. That could simply forward the seek to each underlying source and eagerly return any error. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Remove possibly stale comments related to #510.
I'm not sure if these are stale or not, but I noticed that #510 was merged (actually the successor PR, #585) a while ago, so I figure they might be.