- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:06:19 -0700
- To: Peter van der Noord <peterdunord@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 20:06:47 UTC
That's my point - the only use of multiple inputs/outputs in the API right now is cracking apart the channels. I see why you want to have additional control inputs/outputs from a node - I just don't think wrapping those up in a numbered set of inputs/outputs is the right way to do it. I'm personally not even sure it's the best way to handle channels. On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Peter van der Noord <peterdunord@gmail.com > wrote: > > > , The "inputs" and "outputs" really are channels, to me. > > > > Why not just inputs and outputs? The use of the word channels is > confusing, when there's something else in the api with that name. > > connections have a certain number of channels ( even though connections > arent exposed in the api).
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 20:06:47 UTC