18 Jan
2004
18 Jan
'04
8:04 p.m.
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 06:31, Steve Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 08:07:21 +0000, Mike Rawes
wrote:
Er, yes! Good catch, wasnt thinking straight.
A useful extension to this could be that too adjacent 'hidden' ports with
the same name should be connected.
Eg. if you have a plugin with a hidden 'sync' port output connected to a
plugin with a hidden 'sync' input port they should be connected by the
host.
- Steve
For the record, the idea of hosts automagically connecting things seems
a little sketchy to me...
-Dave
Yes, but
"well-known" port labels are very ladspa-y. eg. the latency
control out port, its not in the spec and it doesnt hurt any apps, but
it is a useful convention.
We could define a meta-convention - something like: if the port label
begines with an _ then it should not generally be shown to users
(unless the app knows what its for and wants to expose it) as they
wont be able to do anything useful with it.
Nice idea (having certain ports hidden from user) - but wouldn't it be
better as a hint, for consistency with the rest of LADSPA?