Dave Robillard wrote:
Not really 'nicely'... essentially implementing the exact same thing n
times. Why bother?
Huh???
Instantiating n times, not implementing.
I know there are certain bad programmers around who would implement it
multiple times or use copy-paste for code reuse, but I don't
Lars Luthman wrote:
I don't like having something this complicated in an extension that is
going to be required if you just want to write a simple synth with a
MIDI input.
Hey, it's simpler than it looks like. Especially when you're writing a
plugin. All you need to do is do this during
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 09:45 +, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Lars Luthman wrote:
I don't like having something this complicated in an extension that is
going to be required if you just want to write a simple synth with a
MIDI input.
Hey, it's simpler than it looks like. Especially when
Lars Luthman wrote:
The difference is not in the number of lines but in how many new
functions and types are used.
I think the cost-benefit ratio is important here. The added complexity
may be worth it for me, but perhaps not for you.
I hope we're still at pretty low complexity level, but
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 16:34 +, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Lars Luthman wrote:
The point is, how a previously loaded plugin (a transparent bridge or
something) will be informed about the new type? In most cases it would
work, though. It's just that old loaded plugins will not know the
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 04:35 +0100, Lars Luthman wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 09:42 +, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
What about this (translate it to C in your heads :) ):
interface IURIRegistryObserver
{
// function in plugin etc. called by host whenever new URI is registered
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 22:50 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 04:35 +0100, Lars Luthman wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 09:42 +, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
What about this (translate it to C in your heads :) ):
interface IURIRegistryObserver
{
// function in
