[Alfons Adriaensen] >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:46:58PM +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: > >> understood. now please consider the implications for a host: it needs >> to find the offset into the string array where the labels for the >> first ENUMERATED port start. no problem, we use PortCount. then it >> needs to compute how many labels (integer values inside that port's >> range) to find out where the next port's value label enumeration >> starts. and so on for every such port. >> all this code needs to be written in every host, just because you >> don't want to give fool-proof pointers to arrays terminated by a NULL >> element? you must be kidding. > >Be reasonable. This is not complicated at all. See code below.
thanks for providing the code. i'll not argue it is not complete seeing that it seems impossible to obtain ladspa.h or gcc from your workplace. :) without making an absolute estimate of the complexity of your snippet, and presuming it will compile and work flawlessly, i think it is safe to say it is more complex than the PortInfo proposal. next, i would like you to consider that if this mechanism becomes reality, we'll have to give a watertight explanation in the ladspa header. also still in dire need of explanation is the fact that an array is referenced as 'PortNames' but contains data that will not fit this name. i do admit the mechanism is elegant, and makes for a compact object file. but these are secondary virtues, with no good reason given why they should preceed primary virtues: readability, simplicity, fool- proof operation, versatility. lastly, you still haven't given a good reason why non-integer values should not be associated with labels. amicalement, tim ps: i like your indentation style fwiw.
