Steve Harris wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 08:37:49AM +0200, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> > > #define SOUNDBOX_PORT_PROPERTY_BUFFER_SHAPE     /* interleaved, noninterleaved,
> > > complex */
> > >
> > > if a hardware PCM "component" exports this kind of stuff, we're in no
> > > better shape than using ALSA when it comes to abstraction.
> >
> > If I don't export it, you lose efficiency is this what you want?
> >
> > Really, but what's the problem to have a property to communicate with
> > soundbox that you *want* non interleaved buffers.
> 
> I don't like hte idea that somones code won't work in a given position
> because it doesn't support one kind of buffer, I like the idea of implicit
> conversion or multiple inner loops even less however.

That's exactly my point:
- no implicit conversion
- no not-disactivable automatic pseudo-intelligent CPU consuming stuff
- maximum flexybility

-- 
Abramo Bagnara                       mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Opera Unica                          Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy

ALSA project               http://www.alsa-project.org
It sounds good!

Reply via email to