On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 19:32 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > On Saturday 01 December 2007, Dave Robillard wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:23 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > > > On Friday 30 November 2007, Krzysztof Foltman wrote: > > > [...several points that I totally agree with...] > > > > If you use integers, perhaps the timestamps should be stored as > > > > delta values. > > > > > > That would seem to add complexity with little gain, though I > > > haven't really thought hard about that... > > > > It does have the significant advantage of eliminating the hard upper > > bound on the range of time that can be present in a buffer (and with > > 'null' events, eliminates any such limit entirely, ala SMF). More > > annoying to work with though.. > > Yeah; someone has to add the "null" events, and the delta nature of > it, obviously. You could hide that in event handling > calls/macros/inlines of course, but still...
Yeah, unless there's some compelling cases where splitting the cycle has a negative side effect, not worth it. -DR- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
