15 Jan
2004
15 Jan
'04
12:41 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:17:19PM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:58:26PM +0100, Alfons
Adriaensen wrote:
I agree. It was not clear at all how the plugin should obtain the dummy
pointer value to compare with -- that would probably require more invasive
changes.
OK, now that we agree :-), I'll leave to you the honour of designating the
new hint bit. If you like I'll add the necessary comments to the header
file and send it for approval this weekend.
--
Fons
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 03:35:05PM +0000, Steve
Harris wrote:
Yes, OK, maybe its not a significant as I think, I still think it is
still more complex - you introduce a new hint, and the plugin can no
longer assume that all buffer pinters are valid - though it has to
be aware that it might not be.
So I think this would be an acceptable solution for LADSPA, and it
would involve fewer changes to existing hosts than adding refernce
buffers. the difference is that it makes the plugin
logic, for 95% of plugins, much simpler.
I fail to see that. Only plugins that specifically requested NULL pointers
by setting the hint bit have to test for them. The 95% others, including all
existing ones, can just ignore the whole issue, they will always get valid
pointers.