Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO

Subject: Re: [boost] Library suggestion - audio IO
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-16 17:07:53

"Greg Rubino" <bibil.thaysose_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:BANLkTinqEf4WGMEzhmFkmo5iPvDCGHc6sQ_at_mail.gmail.com...
> If you're talking about standardizing algorithms and data structures for
> manipulating audio data (like Boost.Gil, but for audio data), then I 
> second
> your suggestion.
>
> However, it sounds to me like you suggesting a library to abstract away 
> the
> details of dealing with audio hardware.  That would be a nightmare to
> maintain and it would bloat the heck out of Boost, so I vote no for that.

There are three layers actually. Algorithms (as GIL), file IO (as GIL.IO) 
and device/audio IO.
I personally have a need for all of those. It can be easily argued that the 
first two do fit into Boost (as audio counterparts of GIL).
As for the third 'layer' it need not be such a nightmare as one might think. 
It wouldn't involve supporting individual hardware devices rather OS API's 
(such as DirectSound, CoreAudio) which would not be that 'alien' to Boost. 
If we could have a GUI ('video presentation') library in Boost, why not an 
'audio presentation'..?

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman