On July 28, 2002 15:01, Malte Starostik wrote: > Subject: Re: qtvision channel numbering > Date: Sunday 28 July 2002 19:11 > From: George Staikos > To: Malte Starostik > > On July 28, 2002 13:03, Malte Starostik wrote: > > channelstore.cpp:103 reads > > »···channel->setNumber( _channels.last() ? _channels.last()->number() + 1 > > : 2 ); > > which causes the first channel to be numbered "2" instead of "1" when a > > channel IO uses -1 for every channel's number. Is this a typo or expected > > behaviour? (why start with 2?) > > I put this in on purpose because TV starts with 2 in North America (well > Canada and most of the US afaik anyways). It's just a hack for now. We > have to come up with a proper solution eventually. Feel free to provide > one. :-) > > I see a very different understanding of the channels' "number" here. To me > this was merely the index in the channel list, and the number one would > type on a remote control, i.e. completely user-defined. > Apparently it's merely intended as the real channel number, i.e. the number > that maps to the frequency. > I'm fine with that interpretation, but then an int can't work, since in > some channel allocation schemes channel "numbers" aren't plain numbers, > e.g. in Europe we have channels named "EXX" and "SXX" where XX are numbers. > OTOH, I don't really see the use of displaying this rather arbitrary (only > allocated according to which channel is free in a particular region) number > in the channel list. The number assigned by the user, i.e. the ordering > (s)he'd like to have on the remote control makes more sense IMHO. Well I think it's important to have the channel number line up exactly as they line up on a physical television unit so that listings work properly. Obviously a more robust solution is needed. > Or did I get the whole thing wrong? > If TV starts at 2 in America, what's on number 1? :-) Often... static. -- George Staikos