Fons Adriaensen wrote: > Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > >> Florian's suggestion makes sense, of naming the ports like something in >> the lines of: >> >> out_1L >> out_1R >> out_2L >> out_2R > > I tried a number of different schemes, and here are the results: > > (creation order 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R, ....) > > -> 4L 3L 1L 2L 2R 4R 3R 1R ???? > -> out1L out2L out3L out4L out1R out2R out3R out4R > -> out_1L out_2L out_3L out_4L out_1R out_2R out_3R out_4R > -> out_L1 out_L2 out_L3 out_L4 out_R1 out_R2 out_R3 out_R4 > > So none of them is really satisfactory, and this is only a simple case.
Yes, you're right. Sorry. And only now I see that qjackctl's jack port list sorting is somewhat flawed, and has been like that for quite a long time. Nevertheless, I'm really glad you noticed and insisted on the matter, Fons. In fact, even my suggestion of numbering ports like out_1L, out_1R, ... doesn't come right either, as you've verified. I though the correct sorted output should be: out_1L out_1R out_2L out_2R but it actually comes like this: out_1L out_2L out_1R out_2R so I think I gotta review the code, as it doesn't obey the "natural" order I've mentioned earlier which I guess as being the consensual one to do. I think you shouldn't bother on jack maintaining any guarantee on port ordering, as clients might be quite dynamic in general, when regarding port (de)registering. Bye now. But I'll be back... -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela [EMAIL PROTECTED]
