Re: A couple more functions.

Stephen J Baker wrote:

> Good idea.  These are *cheap* because they don't have to be stored
> literally and they are easy to write and easy to document.  I can't
> think of a reason to say no.
>
> Hmmm: Do we need a 'phase' input too?
My intention was just to have a simple signal that could be put into 
buffers and streamed (call the function twice to get two buffers then 
queue them on a source in a double-buffer kind of arrangement).  
Personally, I wouldn't use a phase argument, but maybe there are others 
who would view these as fundamental test signals and would want that 
kind of control.
Also, wouldn't the phase of the signal depend on when you call 
alSourcePlay() ?
> Amplitude can obviously be 1.0 - but should we have a 'duration'
> variable so that the end user doesn't have to 'loop' the sample,
> if he just wants (say) a one second 'beep'? 
Probably so.  I was envisioning them as a data generator for streaming 
sources, but I suppose it would be good to be able to generate a short 
pulse as well.
Also, the sampling rate and bytes per sample would need to be defined.  
It's probably safe to say there would only be one channel for these.
> Maybe we can dispense with the alutCreateBufferBoing function
> if we have all of these others to make various beeps ? 
Maybe, maybe not.  It might be desirable to have a non-vocal sound 
sample that's also not a pure waveform.   Just out of curiosity, though, 
why "boing"?  :-)
> I'd like to keep alutCreateBufferHelloWorld function because it
> makes a *great* first program to put in the manual!
>
> I thought maybe we should get everyone on the developer list to
> send in a sound sample of themselves saying "Hello World".  Then
> we could just mix them all together offline so it's a team effort?
> Then *everyone's* voice would be enshrined forever in the ALUT
> distribution! 
Let me know when you start collecting :-)

--"J"