[sdlsound] hmm...

[ranostaj]

> 
>> Historically, len_mult was meant to be a guide to let you know if you
>> needed more memory allocated than your original sound data required.
>> Should we deviate from SDL's current behaviour? Thoughts?
> 
> 
> We already deviate from SDL's current behaviour, since converting between
> arbitrary sample frequencies violates the "buffer length has to be a power
> of two" rule. So I don't see any reason to needlessly cling to the SDL way,
> if we can think of any better one. I doubt this code will make it back into
> any 1.x version of SDL anyway.


We can do some kind of zero padding. Hmm... it doesn't combine with the 
loop stuff :-(
Did you think, the later is useful, anyway? Is it used in games? Perhaps 
some repeating sound,
like walking, raining, machine-gun fire or something like that. I think 
I've seen a similar function
in the win32 api.

   Frank