On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > For the sake of the record, it's been duked out on IRC and Steve > > wins :). (Specifically, ports will be required to have a unique string > > ID, but it will live in the data file, not the code). > > Actually I didn't mean to say that they /will/ be required, just that I > don't have a problem with it. I've not heard anyone else speak in favour > of this, and it is a feature. If theres a critical mass of support I'm OK > with adding it, as it should make the lives of some hosts much easier.
Well then let me weigh in. I have in the past cursed the insensibility of referencing a port with its arbitrary (from the human's POV) numerical ID. I want human-friendly port IDs. > At the risk of upsetting Dave, it can be added a a 3rd party extension > without anything really bad happening. It just means that the Pd messages > / OSC paths / whatever for some plugins will be ugly. "Market pressure" > will ensire that all plugins support it if its useful to enough users. Ick. I'm all for market pressure, but this is not the place for it, IMHO. -- Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
