[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8 Events - ramped events
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:07:28 -0800
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:59:58PM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> Did we reject the idea of a unified representation of ramps and sets? ie.
> one where systems that did not care for ramps could just ignore the slope?
> That seems cleaner to me that having two different types of controls.
That's really more of an implementation idea - the requirement is the
ability to connect outputs and inputs of differing preferences. Read the
section http://www.hockin.org/~thockin/gmpi/#ramped_point_connect for that
info.
> Also, its not stated anywhere, but I'm guessing that ramps should only
> apply to real valued controls, not int, enum, string etc.
Well, String would be weird, but int can make sense, and so could enum.
It's really up to the receiver to handle it, I think, though there may be
guidelines in the implementation that allow or disallow these.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
