On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 11:02:08 -0800, robbins jacob wrote: > However, it seems that plugin writers are more comfortable interpreting > port type=audio to mean that the rate of the port is audio rate. Steve > suggests that it is splitting hairs to try to absolutely determine whether > an audio-rate port is for audio or control content. If this is the case > then we should just leave 2 port types and add a hint for audio-rate ports > that they should be used for control data. > > I feel I must warn that this will make the ladspa_port_types audio vs > control a little misleading to people when they first read the header. If > the port type is chosen to be audio and not data then the port should be > for audio and not data, right? In short I think adding a third port type > would keep the header self-consistent, whereas adding a hint that overrides > and reverses the port type is twisting the standard to match current useage.
Not at all, the /type/ indicates what data you should expect (a vector of LADSPA_Data or a single value), whereas the hint indicates likely usage. Continuous control is a common term than implies a stream of data. In any case this will not be directly visible to users. - Steve
