On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 20:35 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 12 May 2007, at 10:52, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
> > Given the function f(a,b), where most people would only need to bother
> > about f(a), we could do:
> >
> Ugh. I really don't like that. If the API mandates a num/denom, make
> sure its propertly documented and people use it, otherwise it's a
> waste of everyone's time, and it will never be possible to use it in
> practice.
>
Ehrm, I think I said it should be documented in the man page, but
perhaps not in the skeleton demo aimed at people with a bright idea
they'd like to try out
> I can only assume that Fons was joking when he said that, as he's so
> concerned about compatibility.
You don't have to like it, actually most people (except for Fons?) can
just ignore it and move on with whatever it was that they were doing ...
The cost of pushing one or a few extra more/less redundant parameters on
the stack is /nada/ compared to the pointer arithmetics involved in
figuring out where the in and out buffers are located, and then start
shuffling data around and then, while we are at it, perhaps do something
with the data as well?
And no, I can't follow Fons here either, and this discussion has no
relevance to my own line of thought (which is very stubborn integerish
BTW) but, if this is important to a minority, then why not? The overhead
is next to nil and the added complexity can be hidden from those who
don't know how to make it tick.
Mmmmm ....
Or perhaps Fons needs to clearify his case to make it obvious for
everyone that this is the way to go
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun May 13 04:15:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 13 2007 - 04:15:03 EEST