From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Sun May 10 14:57:50 1998
Received: from ctc.swva.net (root@ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA13247
	for <alsa-devel@jcu.cz>; Sun, 10 May 1998 14:57:45 +0200
Received: from robin.swva.net (CVA09-38.swva.net [206.99.244.210])
	by ctc.swva.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA06342
	for <alsa-devel@jcu.cz>; Sun, 10 May 1998 08:51:41 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980510085807.007f9040@mail.vt.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 08:58:07 -0400
To: alsa-devel@jcu.cz
From: Alan Robinson <ar@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: New Sequencer core
In-Reply-To: <35555F2E.50CCD9EE@arrakis.es>
References: <199805042150.XAA26909@obelix.fvdpol.inter.nl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

>In fact, you are right that there are not many difference between using
>one or other unit (and we all be probably using ticks finally), but as I
>said in another posting, ms. is a more general time unit that can be used
>to synchronize many things that don't have a 'tempo' (like animations, or
>audio output). Anyway we can always convert one unit to another, but
>why using a conversion when we can always use the same unit ?

I think tics are better, for the reasons already explained on this list by
others.  I would like to point out that as long as the length of time of a
tic is some rational multiplier of a ms. (ie, 1/6), we can very easily
convert between the two, with no error.  So perhaps the library routines
should offer an interface for ms and tics, while the driver works with tics
exclusively.

-- Alan.


