Sorry, I don't have time to look at this right now. I know it's evil to
introduce a bug and not fix it, I will try to get to it when I can.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Tobias Doerffel
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, 7. Juni 2010, um 17:50:48 schrieb Stefan Fendt:
> > The parent should trigger the child and not vice versa (as it seems to
> > be in current state). Why? The parent is the only one knowing what
> > input-sources it needs and when it needs them, so in some slightly
> > oversimplified pseudo-code this would be something like this:
> This code indeed looks more clear and logical to me. I'd like a solution
> based
> on this code. Especially this could be advanced for avoiding processing
> unused
> FX sends (i.e. such ones that never get routed to master).
>
> Andrew (who developed the FX send support), any comments on this?
>
> Toby
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
> lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
> _______________________________________________
> LMMS-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
>
>
--
Andy Kelley
http://superjoesoftware.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
