data) data) This is what I'm getting at: the original suggestion was to introduce a LADSPA_HINT for continuous control which would be applied to ports of type LADSPA_PORT_AUDIO. I think that this is misleading because I interpret port type = audio to mean that the port is for audio content as opposed to control content. I agree with the proposal as you present it here, adding a new port type (not a new hint). However, it seems that plugin writers are more comfortable interpreting port type=audio to mean that the rate of the port is audio rate. Steve suggests that it is splitting hairs to try to absolutely determine whether an audio-rate port is for audio or control content. If this is the case then we should just leave 2 port types and add a hint for audio-rate ports that they should be used for control data. I feel I must warn that this will make the ladspa_port_types audio vs control a little misleading to people when they first read the header. If the port type is chosen to be audio and not data then the port should be for audio and not data, right? In short I think adding a third port type would keep the header self-consistent, whereas adding a hint that overrides and reverses the port type is twisting the standard to match current useage. --jacob robbins..... _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail