18 Jun
2009
18 Jun
'09
6:52 p.m.
2009/6/18 Damon Chaplin <damon(a)karuna.eclipse.co.uk>uk>:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 20:58 +0200, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
Yes, sorry if I didn't make it clear enough.
2009/6/18 Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net>et>:
Uh? Why not? Exporting a new symbol breaks API/ABI???
You mean adding a function outside the LADSPA_Descriptor, don't you?
i.e. another function like ladspa_descriptor(). (There seems to be some
confusion!) 5. Add
something like this to the API:
struct {
float value;
const char *name;
} ladspa_port_value_enum;
struct ladspa_port_value_enum * ladspa_get_port_value_enums(unsigned long
descriptor_index, unsigned long port_index);
Would not be backwards compatible as far as I can see. I think your idea is cleaner than Fons', and has
the advantage of
allowing non-integer values for the settings.
Well, the main advantage is that we can pollute the "ladspa_
namespace" as we like without API/ABI problems (future proof yeah :-P)
Stefano