On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:08:11PM +0200, Mischan Gholizadeh Toosarani wrote: > 2007/10/4, Mischan Gholizadeh Toosarani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > another charateristic of a numberbox in which it differs from float, > > especially in the counter example you mentioned, is, that there is no > > way of setting the state of a number box without the "set" message. so > > when you try to plug the output of the adder into the number box > > again, i guess you would get an overflow very fast... > > sorry for spamming, hit send accidentally... it would be interesting > if people would like nova-numberboxes to have a second inlet which set > the state only... i would highly welcome impetuses like these.
Well, it would make a lot of sense to me. Does a number box do anything that [f] can not, besides display the curent state and allow it to be modified with a mouse? I don't see any point in mixing around the ports and the meaning of incomming messages for two boxes that do the same thing. Also, I have for the past hours or so been reading about multitouch interfaces. I was thinking that the GUI for a multitouch device would hopefully be substantially different than the GUI for a similar thing designed for mouse interaction. It seems that in many cases, the thought that a patch other wants to convey is, "here is a number, which can be manipulated." Usually, how that manipulation takes place doesn't matter; it might be by mouse, multitouch, MIDI, an external process, telepathy, or whatever. Since it doesn't matter how, it doesn't make sense to put it in the patch. On one hand, I like the idea of banishing the notion of a "gui box" and replacing it with objects in the patches, which have separately defined interfaces which can be selected independantly. It provides a lot of flexability and seems to put more the right information in the right place. On the other hand, I got to thinking, "what if the 'interface' is a motorized fader on a midi device?" Couldn't such a thing be accomplished with existing objects? There is no need for any selectable GUIs for objects. What is required though is that when someone authors a patch and gives it to me, the adjustable things need to be exposed in a generic way, such as on ports that accept messages, such that I can attach to those ports any interface I like. This latter approach is nice because sometimes I *want* to make a patch that plays with the interface. There are surely many cases where one would want to write patches that mangle MIDI data in all sorts of ways. The beauty of this is that if interface things like MIDI I/O are exposed as boxes, they can be manipulated by connecting to all the other boxes available in creative ways. If the interfaces are restricted to some limited number of options that are implemented by some other means, no longer can those interface elements be reused in such a way. _______________________________________________ nova-dev mailing list [email protected] http://klingt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nova-dev http://tim.klingt.org/nova
