Re: [Octal-dev] possible API cleanup: opinions, please?

[Dave O'Toole]

mts wrote:

> I can imagine parameters that are "tick related", it's said that they need
> to be finished for every tick, as well as parameters that are "sustainable",
> so you need to specifically  finish it, (like note/ note off).

> This way you can convert // do something to // do nothing for the 9x% of
> uses, but you can do something if you want. Imagine a parameter called
> PROGRESIVE RESONANCE. that increases independently from the pattern while
> the no_change message it's received and resets itself to a gparam-given
> value when it receives and restart the cycle from that value.



Ah... I see. You are completely right. Very well, the current scheme
(where nochange is sent by the host) will stay as-is. 

However, this means that Avelino will have to add the check 

temp = m->params[0][ix_whatever]
if (temp != nochange)
        process_param_change();

into his plugin code. 

By the way, I am thinking of wrapping that into a macro or function so
that you can type

PARAM_CHECK(ix_whatever) {
        process_param_change(); 
}

-- 
@@@ david o'toole
@@@ address@hidden
@@@ www.gnu.org/software/octal