[gmpi] Re: Topic 6: Time representation
- From: Mike Berry <mberry@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 17:17:49 -0600
David Olofson wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2003 00.26, Mike Berry wrote:
Besides, I don't like compulsory divide instructions hardcoded into
the event handling macros. :-)
In theory, I don't like them either. But they are better than any of
the other solutions that I've seen. And by going to audio samples as a
unit, you are mandating divides for every event I pass to the plugins,
so it seems to be manditory on either side.
Anyway, just to be clear again. My world does not end if we choose the
audio sample rate as the time quanta. I'd like to leave it open to the
host, but I can code to audio samples without significant difficulty.
Though I did just think of another reason why it would be nice. Imagine
a case where you have a host who is also a plugin. Now imagine that you
nest several of these and each has its own sample rate. As events
trickle down through each of the hosts, at each point they are quantized
to the local sample rate. By the time they hit the bottom, they will
have moved significantly in time. If the host controlled the quanta, you
could pass events through unchanged in time.
So yes, I believe that all of the cases for sub-sample quanta are
border cases. But all together I think that they do add some value.
--
Mike Berry
Adobe Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: