On Feb 23, 2010, at 2:42 PM, David Singer wrote: > Something I have wondered about with my colleagues and reached no firm conclusion on is whether (using the same terminology as this message) we need a timing function step-start-end. This would have the semantics > > for N>1, a transition happens at T=0 and also at T=duration, and the others (if any) are equally spaced in the interval. > > This has the two advantages (a) it's symmetric and (b) 'something happens' at the beginning and end of the period I set, rather than one end being offset from the period end. > (for N=1, the transition happens at t=(duration/2), probably, for completeness, though I doubt it's useful) Isn't this the equivalent of adding 1 to N and adding duration/N to the duration (or something close to that)? In other words, can't the equivalent functionality be achieved with just step-start and step-end? ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.comReceived on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 23:43:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:43 UTC