[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:20:53 +0100
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:53:46 -0700, Chris Grigg wrote:
> >I see a need for
> >
> >float - many normal params
> >double - high res params
>
> Could those two be collapsed into just one or the other? Smells a
> bit redundant from a parameter perspective.
Agreed, but I also think that int should be collapsed into one floating
point type, I feel there is some extra simplicity from handling integer
values as a hinted float type, eg. automation, interpolation etc. I dont
have any religious convition about it though :)
> Yes, I like all these, at least as the semantic types. As you say
> below, they can share the same binary reps in most cases, but I like
> keeping the semantics separated at the parameter spec level. Better
> clarity for users.
Is that what you mean by this, more or less?
> >Int parameters can be faked using float.
> >
> >Enum and bool can be faked using int.
>
> Yep..
Or float.
> >So that leaves my NEED list at float/real/sample_type + string + blob. Are
> >there good reasons to turn anything else into fundamental primitives?
> >Perhaps int - can anyone justify it?
>
> Yeah, to avoid unnecessary conversions. I mean, by that logic, since
> you can encode any int or float/double number as a (long enough)
> sequence of ASCII characters, so why use anything other than string?
Conversions aren't really an issue. Often your working with boolean types
in a floating point context anyway, eg.
out = monitor_a * a + b;
where monitor_a is a boolean hinted float.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Mike Berry
- References:
- [gmpi] Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Steve Harris
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Steve Harris
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Chris Grigg
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- » [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Mike Berry
- [gmpi] Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Steve Harris
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Steve Harris
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 8.3
- From: Chris Grigg