[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Sc-devel] MultiTap

To: sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Sc-devel] MultiTap
From: nescivi <nescivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:05:48 +0100
List-archive: <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/pipermail/sc-devel>
List-help: <mailto:sc-devel-request@create.ucsb.edu?subject=help>
List-id: <sc-devel.create.ucsb.edu>
List-post: <mailto:sc-devel@create.ucsb.edu>
List-subscribe: <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel>, <mailto:sc-devel-request@create.ucsb.edu?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-devel>, <mailto:sc-devel-request@create.ucsb.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: nescivi@xxxxxxxxx, sc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.7

Hiho,

I am just noticing that compared to all the other Buffer Delay UGens, MultiTap 
is the only one which has the bufnum argument as the last one, while all the 
others have it as their first. It has it even after mul and add...
Also it has "in" as the third argument, while the others have it as the 
second.

Should we change for 3.2 this to make it consistent?
Or would this break too much code?

sincerely,
Marije

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Sc-devel] MultiTap
  - From: Josh Parmenter

Prev by Date: Re: [Sc-devel] Color(1.0, 1.0, 1.0) != nil
Next by Date: Re: [Sc-devel] Transparent backgrounds in Views
Previous by thread: [Sc-devel] helping autovectorization
Next by thread: Re: [Sc-devel] MultiTap
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread