Re: address@hidden: Re: [linux-audio-dev] multiplexor]

[David O'Toole]

> This sounds like a very interesting technique.  Makes me think - would
> it be better to generalize machine I/O and allow arbitrary numbers of
> ins/outs?

Eventually yes. I've had this possibility in mind, and it would be trivial
to extend the API in this fashion (wouldn't break any source code of
existing machines.)

Whether or not there is a usable GUI for that is another question. When
each box can have an arbitrary number of named "handles" that represent
input ports and output ports, you have to do everything manually, and the
diagram becomes extremely complicated with many crossing wires and tiny
labeled inputs. Most of the graphical "audio synthesis language" stuff
tends to look that way, and one of the reasons I want to keep the
left/right semantics is so that most tasks can be done with the simpler
interface that doesn't involve handles.

Again, it's never been my intention to create a synthesis language that is
capable of expressing everything you'd ever want to do (otherwise what is
the point of writing plugins?) If there's a way to integrate these tasks
with a UI that makes sense then it'll probably happen.

Perhaps this would mean varying levels of detail, where all the handles
and labels hide until you want to edit them.

>
>      inputs
>   | | | | | | | |
>   o o o o o o o o
>      \             <- every clock pulse the switch
>       \               moves to the next input.
>        \
>         \
>          O
>          |
>
>         output
>


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