Yes, of course there would have to be a plain C API.

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message-----
>From: John Lato 
>Sent: Oct 22, 2008 6:19 AM
>To: Michael Gogins , Developer discussions 
>Subject: Re: [Cs-dev] Version 6? ( was Re: Sample accurate k-rate was Re:Questions about musmon/insert)
>
>On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Michael Gogins  wrote:
>> Frankly, I do not think this is a good idea.
>>
>> Evidence: the many versions and branches of Csound that have bit the dust in favor of continued development within the "canonical" trunk. Some of these versions were rather superior in some ways.
>
>How many of these branches were worked on by the core csound
>developers?  I'd say that it's a fairly common practice for developers
>to fork a branch for a new major version, and freeze the stable branch
>except for bug fixes and minor changes.  This is how I read Victor's
>suggestion.  I thought of it more as a project management issue than
>anything else.
>
>>
>> I repeat my suggestion to change the Csound engine from C to C++. This would make it much easier and more bulletproof to change the internals of Csound, add API functions, etc.
>>
>
>I would hope that the Csound API would still be available as C.  C is
>easy for other languages to interface with.  C++ is difficult and
>problematic.
>
>John Lato




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net