On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 06:31, Steve Harris wrote: > 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
For the record, the idea of hosts automagically connecting things seems a little sketchy to me... -Dave
