On Monday 03 February 2003 3:26 pm, ian wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Steve Harris wrote: > > > * No mix output mode; only replace. More overhead... > > > > But how many hosts use mix? As a plugin author, having to implement both > > is a pain. I use code generation to make both functions. > > Mix is very useful for hosts that are running a lot of plugins. Take for > example a modular soft synth. You can save a lot of memory by having > plugins mix into buffers rather than allocating an output buffer for each > plugin. It's not really that much effort to write a mix function as well > as a replace function when you compare it to the actual plugin development > time. I would be very sorry to see it go, as it would mean people would be > able to get less out of their hardware. > Ian
Indeed, and using code generation to get both isn't too hard. If you're using C++ you can do it with templates (see the latest version of cmt for some LADSPA plugins I wrote that do this in an admittedly hacky way)
