24 Apr
2006
24 Apr
'06
9:54 p.m.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Well then let me weigh in. I have in the past cursed the insensibility
of referencing a port with its arbitrary (from the human's POV)
numerical ID. I want human-friendly port IDs.
For the sake of the record, it's been duked
out on IRC and Steve
wins :). (Specifically, ports will be required to have a unique string
ID, but it will live in the data file, not the code).
Actually I didn't mean to say that they /will/ be required, just that I
don't have a problem with it. I've not heard anyone else speak in favour
of this, and it is a feature. If theres a critical mass of support I'm OK
with adding it, as it should make the lives of some hosts much easier. At the risk of upsetting Dave, it can be added a a 3rd
party extension
without anything really bad happening. It just means that the Pd messages
/ OSC paths / whatever for some plugins will be ugly. "Market pressure"
will ensire that all plugins support it if its useful to enough users.
Ick. I'm all for market pressure, but this is not the place for it, IMHO.
--
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach