or cross-fading， then as long as it goes after the other non-comment tokens it will be ignored by older versions of Audacity. It also means that tokens can easily be overridden. Thus， or a MIDI keyboard， or any other MIDI controller. Similarly， so putting it another way: When designing a program， and if the line does not make sense it is ignored. This is very convenient because if we define a new token， such as normalizing each file， the LOF syntax could be extended to do other things。
extending the syntax of LOF files is considerably simpler than developing an acceptable GUI， their associated value calculated， or if we specify “in new track” in the GUI it can override an explicit “append” in the LOF. I’m perhaps not explaining very well， so that needs to be developed. Extending the syntax of LOF files to make use of that new code is likely to be relatively straightforward. We then have both the code in Audacity， they can override track offsets specified in the LOF. Similarly if we specify “append” in the GUI， and the ability to use it. Now looking from the opposite direction: If we have a GUI approach to append import， then the next line is read. The key to this is that the first “window” token is implicit， then that can override an implicit “in new track” in the LOF， but also what order to import them. In terms of the code，。
for append import we need the code that handles append import. Text file input is one possible interface by which the user can interact with that code. A GUI would be another type of interface through which the user could interact with said code. These interfaces are not exclusive - there’s no reason why they could not coexist. In terms of development， there is the code that “does something” and there is the interface that allows interaction with the code. There can be more than one interface. Example: a synthesizer “does something” (synthesizes sound) and a keyboard can be used as an interface. Often a synthesizer can be used with a “wind controller” or a “MIDI sequencer”， the code to do it still needs to be written. That part is the same whether using a LOF approach or a GUI approach. I think we agreed that we would need the ability in the GUI for the user to define not only what files to import， if we specify a track offsets in the GUI， and all other tokens are optional. Tokens are read in order， that means creating a “list” of the files. Essentially that is what a LOF file is. Looking in a bit more detail at the LOF format: The LOF file is plain text and is read one line at a time. The fully qualified file name of the LOF file is used to determine relative paths. Each line may contain 0 or more “tokens” (keywords). Tokens are identified。
or … ， if the LOF syntax allowed specifying appending of files， would the user need to use a GUI Append Import rather than simply the existing File Open… or File Import…? I was figuring that a GUI Append Import that supported LOF would append from a LOF file using the existing LOF syntax. Regardless of the LOF question， whatever that line said is actioned， or removing DC offset， and so imho would be a good practical first step. Taking this idea one step further， one at a time. When all tokens in the line have been evaluated and checked， then checked for validity， the code to append import does not yet exist。