13 Aug
2009
13 Aug
'09
6:06 a.m.
On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard" <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 00:05 +0100, james morris wrote:
Yeah, it's a rounded multifaceted approach from all angles.
On 12/8/2009, "David Robillard"
<dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
So the guy claiming he described the solution already is still working
on grasping the problem? :P </daft> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 23:39 +0100, james morris
wrote:
Don't be daft! I'll admit my LP filter example was less than concise.
On 12/8/2009, "Steve Harris"
<steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2009, at 23:20, David Robillard wrote:
>>
>> Allow one group of ports to have either no replication, or the same
>> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
>> controls tend to stick to 1, audio tends to get replicated, but we may
>> want to replicate the controls to match audio. So, a single plugin
>> could do all of the above cases in a single instance, if the author
>> wants to do it that way.
>
>That makes sense to me.
>
that's what i thought what i said implied [scratches head].
.... I don't think "or ganging the control ports" really quite conveys
the idea entirely ;) > >> Allow one group of ports to have
either no replication, or the same
> >> replication count as another group of ports. Obvious example being,
Which group of ports? The output group from the previous plugin in the
chain? Why not just the number of channels? That's all that's needed
for the simple case I'm talking about.