On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:57:38 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: > >If we're going to change ladspa to add better parameter control, then > >timestamped events seems like a better approach. How you represent this is > >probably not important. > > i see the point. however i guess that right now the issue does not > have enough momentum to trigger a change of ladspa.h, and all that > #includes it. it may not be important how this is implemented, but i > think it might prove tricky if it is still to be called simple; > and ceterum censeo that such a system should be made able to transport > musical data, too.
That would be good, but personaly I think both of these are too complex to go in LADSPA (not anytime soon anyway). If LADSPA evolves into something mroe complex thats OK I guess, but it would be nice to keep something simple for newbie plugin authors to learn on. - Steve
