[gmpi] Re: Item 0: Agenda

  • From: David Olofson <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:30:57 +0100

On Thursday 13 February 2003 14.23, Mikael Hillborg wrote:
> Another alternative is to use common sense and if something is
> dependant on something else, which is to be discussed later, than
> just add a "provided that..." in the discussion or/and requirement.

That might work.

> And maybe we can have a 2nd pass where everything is gone through
> to sort out contradictions and taking final decisions? /MH

Yeah, we'll probably have to do that a few times anyway, on various 
levels. It's hard to avoid massive interdependencies with this kind 
of stuff.

//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
   --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---

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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: