From: Javier S. P. <ja...@te...> - 2006-06-26 13:29:36
|
Sorry for double-mailing you, Tobey. -------- Missatge original -------- Assumpte: Re: [LMMS-devel] 3 ideas Data: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:30:26 +0200 De: Javier Serrano Polo A: Tobias Doerffel En/na Tobias Doerffel ha escrit: > Am Montag, 19. Juni 2006 16:22 schrieb Javier Serrano Polo: >> My problem is I'm in the middle of the automation stuff and won't be >> able to help. If you decide to go ahead let me upgrade those organic >> presets before. > what exactly are you doing at the moment? it would be fine if you would inform > us from time to time about the state of your work, especially for avoiding > conflicts with other developers, because they might to the same thing... I was going to commit today. The most important change: automation, many knobs already use it. > There're also some other things to change: currently you pass pointers to > floats (or whatever) to oscillator-class, but in my opinion it should be > pointers to automatableObject<TYPE> and use their value()-method. This is > much more generic. I think float is more generic than automatableObject. You could use the oscillator within other projects and dependencies are reduced. Besides, you need the transformed value rather than the object's value. > The only thing is, that some code in tripleosc etc. has to > be rewritten, as they calculate the final value from the knobs-value. As > knob, all button-classes etc. are derived from automatableObject<...> it'd be > more logical to use pointers on them instead of "3rd-party-data" ;-) > Otherwise things get too complex very soon... The problem is triple osc isn't the only one using oscillators. Organic does too and it uses different algorithms. >> Then there's libsamplerate, it should be a requirement. Fixes weren't >> applied to non-libsamplerate code. > is it a lot of work to fix them? then it'd be better to fix them... otherwise > we could add a serious warning to configure informing about the issue.. I choose the serious warning. There was a lot of changes and I don't even know if that code worked in the first place. > beside that I would prepare a release within this week, even if it won't be > perfect and complete, but it's better and more stable than 0.1.4 for sure! > and that's important... If you don't want the automation stuff, please tell me. I was going to upload it this evening. I think it's worth a couple of days delay. Bye. |