On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:22:06 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > > > ...and the optional "NOTE_PITCH" that no one will ever use, of > > > course. ;-) > > > > And many of us still think doesn't belong in the API... :) > > Well, my remaining point is basically this: Should we have that kind > of argument about *every* control type hint? :-)
Yes. Redundancy in APIs is as bad as missing features. > I don't think NOTE_PITCH is much more than that; another control type > hint. Indeed, if you have a sequencer that only outputs NOTE_PITCH, > you'll need conversion (explicit or automatic) - but then don't use a > note/scale based sequencer, or use one that's hardcoded for 12tET, if > you don't like this. All you'll miss (or not) is a bunch of event > processor plugins based on traditional music theory. But it duplicates pitch. If you dont allow note_pitch then you dont miss out on anything, all the plugins that would be possible still are, it just makes a small number of specialised actions *slightly* harder. I haven't seen any convincing argument that it isn't redundant and likly to cause problems. - Steve
