I'd say that good enough communication would be enough but "ouput0" -> "output_1" sounds fine as well, especially as it matches an existing convention.
> On Dec 18, 2020, at 9:17 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:17:02 +0100 > From: IOhannes m zmölnig <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PD] Pd's jack outputs are numbered from zero onwards? > Message-ID: <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > On 12/18/20 9:06 PM, Peter P. wrote: >> * IOhannes m zmölnig <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> [2020-12-18 >> 20:52]: >>> On 12/18/20 8:40 PM, Peter P. wrote: >>>> Hi list, >>>> >>>> just discovered that Pd's jack audio ouput ports are numbered from zero >>>> onwards. Is this very intentional? >>> >>> it's been on my todo-list for ages to fix this. >> Great, good to hear! Thanks IO! > > while fixing the issue is trivial, i wonder what's the best way to proceed. > simply changing the port-names from "input0" to "input1" will probably > break all existing auto connection-setups (e.g. qjackctl patchbays). > > currently they will do something like: > "puredata:output1 -> system:capture_0" > > if we just renumber the ports, this will *certainly* introduce > off-by-one errors (e.g. have movie dialoge come out of the sub woofer). > > so we probably should name the ports slightly different, so that > "output0" becomes "output_1". > > (the ALSA backend of jack uses underscores as a separator; but Ardour > (somewhat canonical) uses spaces - though i'd rather avoid that) > > what do you think. > > > famdsr > IOhannes -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
