On Friday 13 December 2002 7:05 pm, David Olofson wrote: > On Friday 13 December 2002 19.01, Steve Harris wrote: > > But it duplicates pitch. If you dont allow note_pitch then you dont > > miss out on anything, all the plugins that would be possible still > > are, it just makes a small number of specialised actions *slightly* > > harder. > > Well, if it's ok to just *guess* which plugins expect you to > interpret their pitch inputs and/or outputs as (1/12)/note rather > than 1.0/octave, then fine - that factor 12.0 is all the complexity > there is to it.
...but what's been said recently about note_pitch and scales means that you have to just "guess" what scale you're in anyway. Solution: have a hint on the input that says it's expecting (1/12)/note. That way it does make sense to cast between them. Simple. > Is it obvious that you must put any "traditional theory based" > plugins *before* the scale converter, if you're not doing 12tET? It is to me. I think you have to understand that anyway in the other system. At least in this case only the people who actually want to use scale converters have to understand them. > > I haven't seen any convincing argument that it isn't redundant and > > likly to cause problems. > > If the ability for the host to perform basic sanity checking on > connections is completely irrelevant, then this feature is indeed > redundant. The note_pitch thing isn't just about sanity checks, though, it's a completely different representation of the same thing. > I haven't seen any proof that it will cause problems, though. You can't prove a negative. I think that it's possible for it to cause quite big problems, which is why I'm still harping on about it.