[LAD] [ANN] LV2 beta3

Dave Robillard drobilla at connect.carleton.ca
Fri May 11 01:13:49 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 23:44 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:58:25PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > I don't support it unless someone has a representation issue. You're  
> > not like to see if (fs == 44100) anyway, and if you did you'd want to  
> > hedge a bit: if (fs > 44090 && fs < 44110). If you have to write if  
> > (fs_num / fs_denom == 44100) then things are bit dodgy anyway.
> Let me state once and for all, even it will not gain me any popularity:
>   Anyone who thinks that writing a range check on a fraction A/B is too
>   difficult is very probably completely incompetent and should not waste
>   his/her time trying to write audio DSP code for a plugin.
> This is not a reflection on Steve's competences which are beyond doubt.
> But if the word of Linux Audio wants to accommodate amateurism and 
> ignorance at the expense of professionalism and experience, I will
> not hesitate a second to say goodbey. I'll feel sad for a few days
> but not much longer.

I don't think it's all that reasonable to go attacking others for not
accepting an idea before even justifying the idea... 

The fraction method is just a nuisance, it has nothing to do with
competence.  If there's a sufficiently compelling reason for the
rational number approach, we should go with that, if not, we should
stick with the double.  Obviously.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list