Still waiting for the pattern commands to set loop points and turn loops on and off…
I mean like this:
C1-01 7F LS40 LS42 .... .. .... ....
.... .. LQ.. .... .... .. .... ....
Aha the old jump command.
I just wonder why the current pattern-break command in Renoise didn’t allow the parameter to set the next arranger or (next-)pattern row to jump to.
DAMMIT NO!
SAMPLE LOOP!
Think glitchy shiznoize and that kind of thing…
Jeeze, not everything involves the patterns, sheesh!
I think that the 9xx commands will be converted to become more sophisticated where you can set the xx positions in the sampleeditor.
At least this idea seems more easy to perform as the code for the command itself already exists and no new command has to be added / invented
You still have to manually enter the 9xx position on the rows you want to perform offsets or sort of loop offset. Then maybe 9FE and 9FF should then be set as looptriggers.
We already had a large discussion about what to do with the effect commands:expand them to go beyond F (adding G to Z ) or adding dedicated columns.
Not really any of them seems to be a good clean solution.
more columns, and then think of it like IP blocks: you have a bunch of commands with high parameter resolution, and LOADS of commands with low paramter resolution, like this
00 RV RB AI
00 BL AH AH
01 AR PG pp
01 RT RG pp
02 05 pp pp
02 CB pp pp
03 pp pp pp
1F pp pp pp
that would be
FFFFFF commands without any parameters
FFFF commands with 1 parameter byte
FF commands with 2 parameter bytes
FF - 3 commands with 3 parameter bytes
or
16’777’216
65’536
256
253
replace “FF” with “ZZ” and you get…
308’915’776
456’976
676
673
… 
And how about making FX numbers remappable, that is, renoise has an internal identifier for them and maps that to a command depending on the settings?
And how are we going to teach newbies to use these bloatware extensions?
Wow, that’s almost like… XPC = eXtensible Pattern Commands!
And then MXPC = Meta-XPC, or commands that modify other commands on the fly, and then OOMXPC for Object-Oriented MXPC!
Then we could have an Obfuscated Renoise compo!
It’s not bloatware if it actually HAS uses above and beyond the original intention. Bloatware would be 1GB of graphics and animation built into ReNoise.
What do you mean with ‘clean’ solution? Is this in similar context with the hex limit in the patterncommand parameters. That you want to keep this hex thing intact throughout, because all the code in Renoise is centered around this?
I would vote for ‘chained’ commands…i.e. something people clamor for is better handling of 9xx. One solution is use the IT method: You have the main offset command 9xx and a sub-command that would go beyond that…so in other words…
Say you want finer resolution on your offset than normal: Link two pattern commands like this:
0X22 0945
0X22 would first trigger the linked/chained offset command, and i suppose 22 would signify double resolution (i.e. there’s TWO complete sets of 0900-09FF) and the second digit signifies which ‘part’ of the splits…
i.e. 0X41 would mean to chop the sample into 4 regions of 0900-09FF then the 1 means use the first chopped section.
This would be feasable with loop points as well…you could thus keep 9xx as merely a pointer in conjunction with other commands…for instance 0L01 = Set sample loop start position…then add in 0Xxx and/or 09xx to set the loop start. 0L02 would be sample loop end.
There could be other chained commands.
It’s one idea…maybe too complicated, but I think it would be most flexible down the line. Of course, it would be in the best interest of control to add more effect columns and be able to HIDE THEM WHILE STILL PLAYING THEM (coughsneakinginanotherrequestcough).
Renoise should remain accessdible to all audience, including people that have never seen a tracker before.
A grid with a lot of different columns might scare off a lot of folks to even try.
Offering commands that go above the hex scope might confuse with the parameters that will be hexadecimal.
(why does 0zff work but 0zzz not?)
What about controlling loop start/end points via automation?