I'd say that good enough communication would be enough but "ouput0" -> "output_1" sounds fine as well, especially as it matches an existing convention.
On Dec 18, 2020, at 9:17 PM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 5 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:17:02 +0100 From: IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at> To: pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Pd's jack outputs are numbered from zero onwards? Message-ID: <c6e151a0-f86f-5703-6567-4b5afa6bc2a7@iem.at mailto:c6e151a0-f86f-5703-6567-4b5afa6bc2a7@iem.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 12/18/20 9:06 PM, Peter P. wrote:
- IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at> [2020-12-18 20:52]:
On 12/18/20 8:40 PM, Peter P. wrote:
Hi list,
just discovered that Pd's jack audio ouput ports are numbered from zero onwards. Is this very intentional?
it's been on my todo-list for ages to fix this.
Great, good to hear! Thanks IO!
while fixing the issue is trivial, i wonder what's the best way to proceed. simply changing the port-names from "input0" to "input1" will probably break all existing auto connection-setups (e.g. qjackctl patchbays).
currently they will do something like: "puredata:output1 -> system:capture_0"
if we just renumber the ports, this will *certainly* introduce off-by-one errors (e.g. have movie dialoge come out of the sub woofer).
so we probably should name the ports slightly different, so that "output0" becomes "output_1".
(the ALSA backend of jack uses underscores as a separator; but Ardour (somewhat canonical) uses spaces - though i'd rather avoid that)
what do you think.
famdsr IOhannes
Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
-
Dan Wilcox