Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

What about PortAudio? It seems to have some kind of custom license, so I don't know if it's boost-compatible: http://www.portaudio.com/license.html It does look quite permissive, so if it's boost-compatible I see no reason not to use it. It takes care of handling playback for you on a multitude of

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Yes, tutorials are here: http://www.portaudio.com/trac/wiki/TutorialDir/TutorialStart Well in any case, if MIT is Boost compatible and you're stuck on an implementation problem you could take a look at the portaudio sources. It has good source-code documentation and is well organized, from what I

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > What about PortAudio? Any idea where the usable documentation is? I glanced through the wiki but it seems to devote all its time to explaining how to compile it... not a good sign. btw though, this is one of the reasons why I often prefer doing it myself rather than using

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

>From reading about it more it seems PortAudio is usable as an MIT license.

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

If you use OSS, it's completely worthless. I know OSS4 is great, but most modern distros don't use it. If sound is playing, it won't work (unless launched with padsp/aoss), if it isn't, you've suddenly blocked sound for the user. I really don't give shit how simple it is, or the politics, it's

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Daniel Gibson wrote: > Especially if SDL1.3 really is released under zlib-license and maybe > could be shipped with Phobos. SDL 1.3 looks quite nice, but it's going to be several months until it's stable release. It won't be difficult to add an SDL implementation to my same interface down the lin

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Am 12.04.2011 14:40, schrieb Michel Fortin: > On 2011-04-12 07:47:48 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: > >> Am 12.04.2011 13:44, schrieb Michel Fortin: >>> On 2011-04-12 07:18:39 -0400, Daniel Gibson >>> said: >>> Also you shouldn't write directly against OSS or ALSA but use SDL or OpenAL or

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

On 2011-04-12 07:47:48 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: Am 12.04.2011 13:44, schrieb Michel Fortin: On 2011-04-12 07:18:39 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: Also you shouldn't write directly against OSS or ALSA but use SDL or OpenAL or libao or ... instead. The problem with intermediary libraries is t

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Am 12.04.2011 13:44, schrieb Michel Fortin: > On 2011-04-12 07:18:39 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: > >> Also you shouldn't write directly against OSS or ALSA but use SDL or >> OpenAL or libao or ... instead. > > The problem with intermediary libraries is that they require work on the > programmer s

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

On 2011-04-12 07:18:39 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: Also you shouldn't write directly against OSS or ALSA but use SDL or OpenAL or libao or ... instead. The problem with intermediary libraries is that they require work on the programmer side to work. I think there is value in being able to wr

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Am 12.04.2011 13:10, schrieb spir: > On 04/12/2011 06:30 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >> I just dug up my old wav.d and quickly added wav.play() support >> to it for both Windows and Linux. Now, this is sucky D1 code, >> but hey, it works, and it's short. If there's interest, I can >> port to D2 and ad

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

On 04/12/2011 06:30 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I just dug up my old wav.d and quickly added wav.play() support to it for both Windows and Linux. Now, this is sucky D1 code, but hey, it works, and it's short. If there's interest, I can port to D2 and add some range support to it and see about fleshi

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

On 4/12/2011 7:57 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: Am 12.04.2011 12:55, schrieb Michel Fortin: On 2011-04-12 00:46:18 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: Especially if SDL1.3 really is released under zlib-license and maybe could be shipped with Phobos. Any reference for that? The website says LGPL or commer

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Am 12.04.2011 12:55, schrieb Michel Fortin: > On 2011-04-12 00:46:18 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: > >> Especially if SDL1.3 really is released under zlib-license and maybe >> could be shipped with Phobos. > > Any reference for that? The website says LGPL or commercial license. >

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

On 2011-04-12 00:46:18 -0400, Daniel Gibson said: Especially if SDL1.3 really is released under zlib-license and maybe could be shipped with Phobos. Any reference for that? The website says LGPL or commercial license. -- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Am 12.04.2011 06:30, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe: > I just dug up my old wav.d and quickly added wav.play() support > to it for both Windows and Linux. Now, this is sucky D1 code, > but hey, it works, and it's short. If there's interest, I can > port to D2 and add some range support to it and see about f

Re: Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

Oh, I forgot to mention. Right now it is wav.play() but if I actually flesh it out, playing will move to a free function that takes an input range of the waveform data, just like how simpledisplay now works. Naturally, the wav class will still exist and will expose suitable ranges, so playing will

Anyone interested in simpleaudio.d too?

I just dug up my old wav.d and quickly added wav.play() support to it for both Windows and Linux. Now, this is sucky D1 code, but hey, it works, and it's short. If there's interest, I can port to D2 and add some range support to it and see about fleshing it out. http://arsdnet.net/dcode/wav.d Aga