On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:20:29PM +0100, David Olofson wrote: > Then again, how important is it that controls not designed for ramping > sort of try to emulate it? I think it's irrelevant in most of cases, > since normally, controls that make sense to ramp will support > ramping, at least to the extent where you get a reasonable > approximation of the expected result. The issue is that a sender of events needs to know whether the receiver can properly handle ramps. > Ramping integer controls, enums and stuff like that sounds like > "weird, experimental stuff" to me - and if you really want to do it, > you can just throw in some control type converter. (Probably required > anyway; see below.) Acceptable to me. We still have to either mandate that float controls support ramps, or we have to provide the info to senders, and all senders have to handle it properly. > Or maybe plugins should be required to have event handlers for all > relevant event types for each control, regardless of type...? I don't > quite like the "exploding number of possible combinations to test" > part of it, but it would be a very efficient way of supporting > float->double, double->float, float->int etc. No converters, and > still no extra conditionals and stuff. (If events are decoded with a > single switch() with sensibly chosen case values, the number of cases > has no effect on performance.) yuck. Better to have generic control type converters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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