Re: [LAD] [RFC] LADSPA 1.2

2009/6/18 Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden>:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:55:21PM +0200, Stefano D'Angelo wrote:
>
>> > Host will need to use the value (UpperBound + 1) no matter
>> > where these strings get stored. A host looping over the port
>> > data should just initialise a pointer:
>> >
>> > const char **enum_labels = descriptor->PortNames + descriptor->PortCount;
>> >
>> > for (i = 0; i < descriptor->PortCount; i++)
>> > {
>> >    // ...
>> >    if (enum_hint_is_set)
>> >    {
>> >         int nlabels = upperbound + 1;
>> >         // Copy 'nlabels' and 'enum_labels' to where you want
>> >         // them, normally something representing the widget.
>> >         // Copy the strings to the widget if necessary.
>> >         enum_labels += nlabels;
>> >    }
>> >    //  ...
>> > }
>> >
>> > And that's all. The loop and everything in it, the 'if',
>> > the 'nlabels' and the commented parts will be needed anyway,
>> > the only 'typical' code are the two lines initialising and
>> > incrementing 'enum_labels'. I don't think it could be any
>> > simpler.
>>
>> Ahem... this is not so simple on both plugin and host side IMO, and
>> would make the API less usable for people who don't make a living out
>> of C programming.... another possible (and better IMO) solution is
>> already available: LRDF. We already have enumerated port values for
>> LADSPA there.
>
> Are you serious ? Almost all of this code you need ANYWAY no
> matter where and how the labels are stored. The only two
> lines typical for the proposed way are the initialisation
> and increment of the enum_labels pointer.

You would have to add the names in order of (port index, value),
starting from PortNames + PortCount... is this really so intuitive to
someone who occasionaly does C?

> Storing the labels in any other way would require at least
> as much code typical for doing it in that way, and it wouldn't
> be simpler.

Yes, but we already have that (I don't know if any host supports that
already, though). The hint, instead, sounds right to me.

> I don't want to be rude, but anyone having a problem
> understanding this should not even *think* of writing
> a host. He/she will have many much more difficult things
> to write.

We don't care about host authors with LADSPA, but about plugin
authors, right? Well..

> The plugin itself does not need the labels.

Need != want.

> All this I've already said five years ago, with the
> same reactions from people who apparently don't take
> the time to think before posting. I'm not going to
> repeat that entire thread.

I don't want to repeat nothing, I really don't care, and any solution
(even none) is fine with me. I was just making a suggestion and you,
as usual, are bashing people claiming they don't use their brain when
you disagree... you're becoming too Italian man (and here's an Italian
writing this mail).

Stefano
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Jun 19 00:15:04 2009