On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 23:39 +0100, james morris wrote: >> On 12/8/2009, "Steve Harris" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:20, David Robillard wrote: >> >> >> >> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same >> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being, >> >> controls tend to stick to 1, audio tends to get replicated, but we may >> >> want to replicate the controls to match audio. So, a single plugin >> >> could do all of the above cases in a single instance, if the author >> >> wants to do it that way. >> > >> >That makes sense to me. >> > >> >> that's what i thought what i said implied [scratches head]. > >.... I don't think "or ganging the control ports" really quite conveys >the idea entirely ;) Don't be daft! I'll admit my LP filter example was less than concise. >> >> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same >> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being, Which group of ports? The output group from the previous plugin in the chain? Why not just the number of channels? That's all that's needed for the simple case I'm talking about. Would it be worth having two extensions? One for complex examples useful for (modular) synthesis and voice polyphony, and another for the simple cases such as the lp filter example? james. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
