Re: [Sc-devel] what needs to be done before 3.2?

[Scott Wilson <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20 Dec 2007, at 21:33, Josh Parmenter wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hmm. I think there was a notion of expressing only the fastest  
> > possible rate. Is there a reason why that wouldn't work?
>
> Well... BufRd for instance needs a-rate for phase, but can't use k- 
> rate. This is the exception rather then the rule though, so perhaps  
> this is fine, with special note where needed.

I'm fine with that. Any objections?

Do we want the rates as you've done them, or in the descriptions?
> > I'd trod carefully with this. It might be best to make a careful  
> > decision and go through the rather tedious and large job of doing  
> > this for all the files rather than risk having this patchily and  
> > inconsistently added to some files. I don't imagine you're  
> > planning to do all of them? ;-)
>
> UGen.subclasses.size
> 279
>
> yes... daunting! But how can the general user know what kind of  
> input is allowable? Since 3.2 is supposed to be a reference for THE  
> reference, it seems like this should be included. If not now, when?

Josh, that's the kind of bold argument I like to hear!

> I certainly can't do all of these, bit perhaps if a number of us  
> each took a UGen source file?

Okay, I'll certainly do one if we can get enough people to cover it all.

While we're at it though, could we please, please, please correct all  
the files so that they more or less match the UGen template?

S.