Among other things, this means that automation controls/lists have the actual
min/max/normal/toggled of parameters, and not those inferred from the Parameter
ID, which is not correct for things like plugin parameters.
Pushing things down to the Evoral::ParmeterDescriptor may be useful in the
future to have lists do smarter things based on parameter range, but currently
I have just pushed down the above-mentioned currently used attributes.
Remove old (already #if 0'ed) implementation of Evoral::coverage() and its
comments.
Tidy up the comment enumerating all the possible ways in which two ranges
can overlap, note the Evoral::OverlapType corresponding to each one, and add
comments to the if()s in coverage corresponding to the cases in the list of
overlap types.
Remove some commented-out assert()s that actually do happen, and re-instate
one that really shouldn't.
Fix a small typo (with -> within)
The various conditionals in Evoral::RangeList::subtract() appear to have
been there to work around
(a) coverage() not always returning the correct value, &
(b) the test suite assuming that the ->to point lies outside the range
Now that these are both fixed, the implementation of subtract() becomes
quite a bit clearer. I replaced the if()s with assert()s for now, but these
shouldn't trip if coverage() is working as I expect.
Also (attempt to) clarify the comments in subtract.
Comments in various call sites of Evoral::coverage() marking things I think
are dubious (with XXX). Also straightened up the alignment of some ASCII
art in libs/ardour/diskstream.cc
Rewrite Evoral::coverage() to (hopefully) do what it's supposed to.
Return OverlapNone for invalid ranges: if either of the ranges passed to
Evoral::coverage() have negative length (i.e. start > end), return OverlapNone
- it seems reasonable to say that a negative-length range can't overlap
anything. Also return OverlapNone from the fallthrough case, though this should
never happen.
Some of the tests for Evoral::RangeList::subtract() assume that ranges
don't contain their end (->to) point. This appears inconsistent with how
they are used elsewhere.
Add some ASCII art comments to the tests to try to clarify what they're
really testing for, and amend subtractTest1, subtractTest4, & subtractTest5
to incorporate the assumption that ranges include their end points.
