[LV2] Simplifying the Atom model

Stefan Kersten sk at k-hornz.de
Sun Feb 10 14:00:28 PST 2013

On 10/02/2013, at 21:30, David Robillard <d at drobilla.net> wrote:.
>>> As does the examples, as do a ton of plugins that copy them.
>>> Seems clear this is just generally more of a nuisance, what's the
>>> advantage?  There is the argument that it shouldn't be changed just
>>> because it shouldn't be changed, but in general it seems pretty clear to
>>> me now that this way sucks, the type hierarchy is weird and pointless.
>> imo the current design, which makes an explicit distinction between distinct datatypes is better than merging the types but having different semantics of the type field depending on its value (not only affecting the atom but also the urid extension). the nuisance you refer to above could be alleviated by adding one helper function to atom.h.
> But they *aren't* distinct data types!  That is the point.  They are
> exactly the same datatype.
> It is a straight up incorrect model.  Blank nodes and named resources
> are *not* a different type of thing.  They just have a different kind of
> ID.

ok, i see now! what are blank node ids used for anyway in existing code atm?


More information about the Devel mailing list