[gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:09:56 -0700
Hi Chris,
Hey Jeff.
> If every event message contained both the set-to value and the
full-range value, then whatever entity receives the message could
handle it however it wants to
I have the nagging feeling that sending both is redundant, given that
conversion from normalised to naturalised is quite easy (if you know the
legal range), but I'm not saying I dissagree.
Best Regards,
Jeff
Yeah, you're right. I came to the same conclusion after I sent that.
Unless range min/max are going to be allowed to change over time,
architecturally it's best to have one fixed go-to place for the range
info. And anyway min would also need to be in there too, not just
max. Of course this then means in turn that such a known place will
have to exist. So I guess we may need some sort of 'control output'
entity after all, even if only to staple that stuff to it.
-- Chris G.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
- Follow-Ups:
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- References:
- [gmpi] 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Jeff McClintock
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Jeff McClintock
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
full-range value, then whatever entity receives the message could handle it however it wants to
I have the nagging feeling that sending both is redundant, given that conversion from normalised to naturalised is quite easy (if you know the legal range), but I'm not saying I dissagree.
Best Regards, Jeff
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Jeff McClintock
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Jeff McClintock