2009/6/18 Stefano D'Angelo <zanga.m...@gmail.com>: > 2009/6/18 Luis Garrido <luisgarr...@users.sourceforge.net> >> >> This has been debated already. Several times. For instance, please >> follow this (long) thread: >> >> >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2004-March/006948.html >> >> While I think that each side of the argument has its merits, in the >> end to me it all boils down to: "is lrdf simple and lightweight enough >> so it is acceptable to consider it from a practical point of view a >> de-facto mandatory extension of ladspa.h for all but the simplest of >> hosts and plugins?" >> >> My personal answer is "mmm... okay, I guess" but I don't think we will >> ever reach a global consensus on this. > > > We have basically five alternatives, I guess: > > 1. Forget about this; > 2. Implement this breaking the ABI (API too?); > 3. Do as Fons suggested (which to me sounds like make that tiny part of the > API a bit counter-intuitive); > 4. Use LRDF; > 5. Add something like this to the API: > > struct { > float value; > const char *name; > } ladspa_port_value_enum; > > struct ladspa_port_value_enum * ladspa_get_port_value_enums(unsigned long > descriptor_index, unsigned long port_index); > > I'd choose 4 or 5, but in the end I don't really care, whatever is fine with > me. > > Stefano
Oops, I was meaning struct ladspa_port_value_enum ** ladspa_get_port_value_enums(unsigned long descriptor_index, unsigned long port_index); Returned value is a NULL-terminated array of pointers... well, whatever. Stefano _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
