Sorry, I don't have time to look at this right now. I know it's evil to introduce a bug and not fix it, I will try to get to it when I can.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Tobias Doerffel <tobias.doerffel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Am Montag, 7. Juni 2010, um 17:50:48 schrieb Stefan Fendt:
> The parent should trigger the child and not vice versa (as it seems to
> be in current state). Why? The parent is the only one knowing what
> input-sources it needs and when it needs them, so in some slightly
> oversimplified pseudo-code this would be something like this:
This code indeed looks more clear and logical to me. I'd like a solution based
on this code. Especially this could be advanced for avoiding processing unused
FX sends (i.e. such ones that never get routed to master).

Andrew (who developed the FX send support), any comments on this?

Toby

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
lucky parental unit.  See the prize list and enter to win:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel




--
Andy Kelley
http://superjoesoftware.com/