Discussion on the semantic of ports, addresses & bindings

[thibaudk]

@jcelerier

Another question is, do we want to have any kind of non-linear mapping function in cables / in the address → port & port → address mapping ?

I would imagine that at this level, it would be best to have a option when right clicking on a cable that places an actual mapper process on the cable. basically split the cable, shove a mapper in the middle, and make sure everything is reconnected.

@jcelerier

1/ map things both from nodes within the software (e.g. using a LFO to control some audio effect, say a chorus’s intensity) and from/to external devices by taking into account their respective domains.

2/ allow multiple inputs-outputs for nodes (both cables and addresses). For instance, using the same LFO to control two parameters, one with a range of [0; 1], the other with a range of [-10; 100].

I think all of it should happen on the receiving address slot with a similar interface as with extended types. On the receiving side, only one min and max should be necessary if the input range is deduced (it should always be set with some sensible defaults if the user did not provide a range). min and max could be separated, and default to the input range when not set (ie. not setting the min for incoming values starting at 0 would default to zero, that way, mapping a [0; 1] incoming range on a [0; 255] parameter range only requires setting the receivers max to 255).

This would also require for the address slot to be able to hold several addresses, each with a min, a max, extended types and a tween option. it would imagine a little “+” on the left of the slot to add another one, much like we have for conditions.

Also At this point it would be vital to be able to represent incoming cables in the address slot, to differentiate between different incoming streams, and set all these parameters accordingly.

hope this is clear, but I doubt it.
I’ll try to come up with illustrations.