On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:11:35 +0100, Dr. Matthias Nagorni wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Steve Harris wrote: > > > OK, thats a reasonable definition for enumerations, but its missing the > > non-ionteger eqivalent, "scale points" or whatever you want to callthem, > > eg in ringmod_2i1o(1188) "Modulation depth (0=none, 1=AM, 2=RM)" input, > > control, 0 to 2, default 0. its not an integer control, its a continuous > > valued control with specific meanings at specific points. Another example > > is an oscilator control knob in LFO modules with contiunous varition > > through sine, tri, saw, square. > > > > I'l grant you that this case is less common, but its still one of the > > "neccesary" control types. > > First: In general I don't understand why the difficulties to fix problem 2 > (continuos controls with certain meanings) should prevent us from solving > problem 1 (the enumerations) where Fons already suggested a perfect solution.
They are the same problem - annotating certain values with labels. If you solve one and not the other something is very wrong. I see Tim has just posted a solution to both but I havent looked at it yet. > Moreover, as you already granted, problem 2 is less severe. Less common, thats different. > Usually the meaning of certain points is displayed in the port name (as in > the examples you mentioned). I don't know of any plugin where there are > more than 3 defined points, so the string won't be too long for this and > using just a slider control seems fine. The same as enumerations then? > > I dont think what you're prosoing is an unacceptably bad hack (though I > > dont think its a good one either), but I do think the RDF solution is > > much cleaner. > > So, will that make it into the next LADSPA spec ? It doesnt need to, its metadata. All it requires is that the hosts that want those features parse the RDF - thats not all the hosts (though the majority allready do) and it doesnt require any changes to ladspa.h. - Steve