[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes

From: Paul Millar
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] Fluidsynth changes
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:24:18 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

Hi Miguel,

I'm afraid this is just a quick reply (to be polite!) as I've just caught the 
tip-end of a work snow-drift.

On Friday 20 April 2007 14:33, Miguel Lobo wrote:
> I wanted to avoid a very detailed discussion of the current codebase,
> because I think it's likely to get too specific and unlikely to sway people
> either way.  But anyway, I'll mention a couple of examples: there is a lot
> of boilerplate code for FluidList's that is repeated in many places, and
> you can also check fluid_defpreset_noteon in defsfont.c and
> fluid_rampreset_noteon in ramsfont.c.

I'm not *that* familiar with the code-base, which was why I was interested.  
I'd previously noticed some memory leaks with the SoundFont handling, so 
delved into that part of the code to fix 'em.  Beyond that, I've only skimmed 
other parts of the code.

I've had a better look at the code you mentioned and I see what you mean: it 
does look like the code there isn't so well structured.

I'd say the code needs re-factoring, pulling out the commonality as a common 
function.  Of course, one can do this with C++ (or OOP, in general) ideas; 
but I'd say it should still be possible with C.

> Well Paul, as you said this is a hot topic so perhaps we would do well to
> avoid emotionally charged words such as "fanatical".

Sorry, that came out stronger than it was meant.

> Most of the coding 
> standard change was done fairly quickly using a code reformatter called
> Artistic Style and a simple Python script I wrote in half an hour.

Interesting... I didn't know of Artistic Style so I've booked marked it for a 
better look when I get some spare time again.

> If it was a waste of time, it was a waste of *my* time [...]

Sorry if I suggested anything other than that!

But, apart from anything else, I rather suspect that it would take rather a 
long time to reach a consensus point-of-view of exactly what the coding 
standard should be :-)

Well, looks like the fork is going ahead.  I wish you luck with the C++ 
version and I hope the two projects can share ideas.



Attachment: pgpdtk4u_D0MR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]