On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
> >From: "Richard W.E. Furse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >It has been made clear from the ground up that variable data types are
> >beyond the scope of LADSPA for reasons of simplicity and compatibility.
>
> There is nothing problems in including them. As I minute ago mailed,
> it is even possible to allow arbitrary types if programmer of plug-ins
> provide conversion plug-ins for his own system.
>
> If you really want go for limited path, choose 64-bit float for signal
> transmission.
>
> Scope of LADSPA.. my ass! :)
> Sure different plug-in layers are must, but it just happen to be that
> LADSPA is **the** layer where different data types should be provided.
>
> So, my suggestion is:
> Don't fix the types as enumerated numbers, use string names instead.
This is basically just a matter of encoding. Isn't 32768 different
types enough? And strings don't prevent clashes. It has to be managed
centrally anyway.
//David
.- M u C o S --------------------------------. .- David Olofson ------.
| A Free/Open Multimedia | | Audio Hacker |
| Plugin and Integration Standard | | Linux Advocate |
`------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' | Open Source Advocate |
.- A u d i a l i t y ------------------------. | Singer |
| Rock Solid Low Latency Signal Processing | | Songwriter |
`---> http://www.angelfire.com/or/audiality -' `-> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -'
