Right now, if you fix a loop point and move the start or end point up to touch this loop point, the loop point is reset to 0, and you need to fix it again. It would be nicer if this loop point could be simply pushed and released at that position.
For exemple, say i fixed the Loop point here :
Righ now, if S is moved up to touch LP, LP disappears.
It would me more natural to have something like this :
.....S>...LP................E S is moving to the right
.....................SLP....E Contact ! LP is pushed by S
.........<S...........LP....E S is going away
....S.................LP....E LP stay at the last contact position
Same for E
For musical purpose, you could also want to keep the window made by “LP…E” locked, so when you move E, LP move at the same time to keep the same window lengh.
I haven’t used sample looping much but I imagined a similar system for envelopes.
It seems to me that the way position editing is implemented now is very straightforward: every point hat its position, and if one point is touched/moved by some other point, its position gets changed immediately and stays that way until changed again explicitly.
What I had in mind was to have two values per point: the “set” value and the “current” value. The “set” value is set explicitly when the exact point is selected and moved. The “current” value represents where the point actually is. It is not set directly but rather derived from the “set” value and the overall context (i.e. positions of the neighboring points). The way the “current” position is calculated could be different for every point. For some, it could be just the “set” value clamped by neighboring points’ positions. For others, it could be the percentage between the previous and the next points. Or the absolute distance to the next point (like in your “LP…E” example).
This way we could have envelopes and looping points react in a more friendly way. Less like abacus and more like… a chain made of rubber segments… or whatever makes sense. I also believe this could solve the confusion lots of people have when using percentage-based envelopes.
I’m not sure though if there are any potential problems to this solution. Maybe @Mickey could chime in and comment on this.