>> that pretends that multiple sample types in the same graph is a good >> idea, because it doesn't really help anybody out (it confuses users, >> creates more work for host developers, and creates a choice for plugin >> developers which is frequently a bad idea). > >It also gives us a way to grow that we otherwise do not have AT ALL. When >we need to support double (for marketing or real reasons) we have to break >GMPI in an incompatible way. Hosts will have to support both types, for at >least a while. And it will hurt. Designing it in now means that MAYBE we >can make it hurt less. this isn't true. we would just define a new platform. anyone could define a new platform. the point is that all that changes is the sample type (plus all the host- and plugin-code dedicated to specific sample types). #ifdef .. etc ... typedef double GMPISample; #endif .. etc ... a host can market itself as "GMPI Platforms supported: ", and plugin authors can produce "GMPI Platforms supported: ...." versions. obviously, some people will try to write hosts that support multiple platforms at one time. they are welcome to. >> if we're going to spend time on multiple data types, lets focus on >> allowing FFT data to be passed around, which i think it *vastly* more >> useful. > >and is allowed by the same scheme you maligned above, I think. FFT is much harder. it has lots of parameters about which reasonable people can disagree. --p ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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