it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.
Roman Haefeli wrote: > i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there > is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the > only way to achieve a settable send. > there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial > values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message > box, where all values can be stored instead of having a > > [loadbang] > | > [13] > | > [s value] > > construction for each value. > > this: > > [loadbang] > |__________________ > |; / > |value 34 | > |somevalue 127 | > |othervalue 57 | > |yoyo 1___________\ > > looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it? > > roman > > > > On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote: >> Hey, >> when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" >> instead of a send object like: >> [;detune $1( >> vs >> [s detune] >> I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient >> then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). >> this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. >> marius. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PD-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de > > _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list