I finally understand.
So there's really no problem. It can be fixed with documentation and semantics.
For example, what @bluebell proposes would clarify the use of inserts and disambiguate it from the concept of "insert," which encompasses inserts and auxiliary outputs.
No one would think of interconnecting "externals." If someone does it as a trick, or something experimental, and it works, good for them... But that person knows the tool isn't designed for that. Therefore, if it fails, it will be completely understandable to them.
Although perhaps changing the nomenclature used for so many years is a mistake.
We'll just let you know how we see it.
I'm sorry for reopening this whole issue again, and by the effort of the branch [xcopyinbuf].
I'm clear now, and I won't return to it.
I finally understand.
So there's really no problem. It can be fixed with documentation and semantics.
For example, what @bluebell proposes would clarify the use of inserts and disambiguate it from the concept of "insert," which encompasses inserts and auxiliary outputs.
It would be something like this:
Inserts > Audio > + Add External
Inserts > Audio > + Add Aux Send
Inserts > Audio > External Sends
Inserts > Audio > External Retuns
No one would think of interconnecting "externals." If someone does it as a trick, or something experimental, and it works, good for them... But that person knows the tool isn't designed for that. Therefore, if it fails, it will be completely understandable to them.
Although perhaps changing the nomenclature used for so many years is a mistake.
We'll just let you know how we see it.
I'm sorry for reopening this whole issue again, and by the effort of the branch [xcopyinbuf].
I'm clear now, and I won't return to it.
Thanks