Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] SFZ parse patch

[Christian S. <sch...@li...>]

On Friday 28 February 2014 13:09:39 Sergey wrote:
> I've searched available SFZ specs and there is no official include
> operator. So yes, it is my suggestion.

In general I think that extension makes sense, so I am not opposed to apply it 
to the sampler. I just wonder whether a special prefix shall be used, 
indicating a custom extension, to avoid a potential clash with an "official" 
SFZ include statement that might be introduced in future.

What do our SFZ experts say? Andreas? Anders? Grigor?

CU
Christian