Please, let's not replicate any more code.

I'm fine with removing pvanal and using only pvxanal. Same for any other *anal - *xanal pairs.

In general, I think that getting pvocex into the API and working properly is a requirement for any sort of release of Csound 5.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: jpff@codemist.co.uk
Sent: Jun 3, 2005 8:40 AM
To: csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Cs-dev] pvanal and pvxanal

How do we feel about removing pvanal totally, and using the pvxanal
system, which is more secure, deals with multiple channels etc.?  I
think the pvoc code needs to retain the ability to read the older
format, but there is no need to create new versions.

It also seems that we need to add a bunch of functions to the API
(besseli, kaiser,...) or to replicate the code.

==John ffitch


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Yahoo.
Introducing Yahoo! Search Developer Network - Create apps using Yahoo!
Search APIs Find out how you can build Yahoo! directly into your own
Applications - visit http://developer.yahoo.net/?fr=offad-ysdn-ostg-q22005
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Yahoo.
Introducing Yahoo! Search Developer Network - Create apps using Yahoo!
Search APIs Find out how you can build Yahoo! directly into your own
Applications - visit http://developer.yahoo.net/?fr=offad-ysdn-ostg-q22005
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net