The spec does not appear to allow for the audio device to be
opened as a bidirectional device, so that a microphone can
be recorded … such as for voice in network play settings
or for voice activated features of the application.
Would anybody object to the API being extended in a minimal
way to permit that kind of use, utilizing a second callback
function to deliver the microphone audio samples ?
Check out the mailing list archive or:
http://www.icculus.org/SDL_sound/
for more information…
I believe this is a project working towards that…On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:46:39PM -0700, Alex Perry wrote:
The spec does not appear to allow for the audio device to be
opened as a bidirectional device, so that a microphone can
be recorded … such as for voice in network play settings
or for voice activated features of the application.Would anybody object to the API being extended in a minimal
way to permit that kind of use, utilizing a second callback
function to deliver the microphone audio samples ?
SDL mailing list
SDL at libsdl.org
http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
Check out the mailing list archive or:
http://www.icculus.org/SDL_sound/
for more information…I believe this is a project working towards that…
No, it’s not.
–ryan.
As I said, “I believe”, looks like I was wrong, I know someone had been
discussing this on the list, there’s been so many announcements and API
discussions that i’m a little bit confused at the moment 
-EvilTypeGuyOn Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 05:35:16AM -0400, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
Check out the mailing list archive or:
http://www.icculus.org/SDL_sound/
for more information…I believe this is a project working towards that…
No, it’s not.
Check out the mailing list archive or:
http://www.icculus.org/SDL_sound/
for more information…I believe this is a project working towards that…
No, it’s not.
As I said, “I believe”, looks like I was wrong, I know someone had been
discussing this on the list, there’s been so many announcements and API
discussions that i’m a little bit confused at the moment
Why have people been so defensive lately (over nothing) when they’re
proven wrong? You were wrong, ok, no harm no foul, no need to reply with
an even more useless, meaningless retort. Why the reply? Cause he used a
one-line response?
If you had an idea that someone had been discussing this before, and you
wanted to help, then why not search the archives so you can find the answer
and point them to it? That’s the fast way to get “unconfused”. That
reply would’ve made much more sense had you found the API that had what he
was looking for, you could’ve “vindicated” yourself (in your eyes, I
suppose, I don’t think anyone else thinks less of you).
Ok, I’m sorry I jumped in to point this out, but I’ve been seeing it a lot
lately … I won’t waste anyone’s time pointing it out again :P.
M. R.
Why have people been so defensive lately (over nothing) when they’re
proven wrong? You were wrong, ok, no harm no foul, no need to reply with
an even more useless, meaningless retort. Why the reply? Cause he used a
one-line response?
Group hug, everyone.
–ryan.
“Ryan C. Gordon” a ?crit dans le message news:
mailman.1001087766.26883.sdl at libsdl.org…
Why have people been so defensive lately (over nothing) when they’re
proven wrong? You were wrong, ok, no harm no foul, no need to reply
withan even more useless, meaningless retort. Why the reply? Cause he used
aone-line response?
Group hug, everyone.
We deserve that .
Simply Jocelyn.> --ryan.
/me <> the living daylights out of said individual.On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 11:55:46AM -0400, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
Why have people been so defensive lately (over nothing) when they’re
proven wrong? You were wrong, ok, no harm no foul, no need to reply with
an even more useless, meaningless retort. Why the reply? Cause he used a
one-line response?Group hug, everyone.