On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 08:07:21 +0000, Mike Rawes wrote: > > Yes, but "well-known" port labels are very ladspa-y. eg. the latency > > control out port, its not in the spec and it doesnt hurt any apps, but > > it is a useful convention. > > > > We could define a meta-convention - something like: if the port label > > begines with an _ then it should not generally be shown to users > > (unless the app knows what its for and wants to expose it) as they > > wont be able to do anything useful with it. > > Nice idea (having certain ports hidden from user) - but wouldn't it be > better as a hint, for consistency with the rest of LADSPA?
Er, yes! Good catch, wasnt thinking straight. A useful extension to this could be that too adjacent 'hidden' ports with the same name should be connected. Eg. if you have a plugin with a hidden 'sync' port output connected to a plugin with a hidden 'sync' input port they should be connected by the host. - Steve
