9 Mar
2004
9 Mar
'04
11:32 a.m.
[Steve Harris]
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:15:13 +0100, Tim Goetze
wrote:
Yes, thats what I was objecting to, overloading the semantics of "default"
to exactly the opposite is not a good idea IMHO.
agreed, it's a matter of taste, probably.
there's another sensible solution that removes the redundancy from the
default value: if we remove the references to 'zero' as the low signal
in the spec and replace it with 'the default value', the plugin can
choose what value to indicate 'low' itself.
in any case, a redundant default value gives room for
misinterpretation through expectation: "ok, so the low signal is zero,
surely i need not specify it as the default value as well."
amicalement,
tim
You said
"a pushbutton emitting the default value for the port is a
possibility", I was responding to that.
in that case, sorry for being vague. i'm trying to say that removing
the redundant default=0 constraint frees the default value to do
something useful.