3 May
2004
3 May
'04
9:03 a.m.
[Steve Harris]
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 03:33:14 +0200, Tim Goetze
wrote:
i like the spec as it is, but i'm not entirely comfortable with the
'disposable' attribute.
for one thing, i'd not like to see the idea disposed of before it
becomes used ... :)
for another, with increasing adoption, 'disposable' becomes 'definite'
soon enough, whether we like it or not.
so far, the only weakness i see is the lack of support for GUI-less
operation, which can easily be amended by making conf documentation
mandatory (synthesis parameters that aren't accessed through LADSPA
ports should also be documented i think). sure, you can reconstruct
that info by going over source code, but i'd rather you needn't.
tim
i'm inclined to think that free-form docs are
sufficient. it would be
nice to have a complete conf language but the effort implementing that
is likely to be huge or require yet another library or both, and maybe
not even worth it.
Yes, The D stnads for disposable - its just a quick hack to get embedable
softsynths without building much thats new - it reuses existing
technologies as much as possible - the core DSSI code/spec is tiny.