Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > I didn't think of changing the behavior by using different wrappers, > that makes sense. I guess with nqpoly4 vs polypoly the main > difference in the wrapper. I think there are a couple advantages to > not using a wrapper: > > - makes it easier and more transparent to find instances when > debugging, [$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9] is a strange construct to see
Yep, that's true, but OTOH a wrapper is just a Pd patch, which is much easier to change than a dynamic patching construct. That has to be taken into account when it comes to longer-term maintainability. Generally less dynamic patching is better. > - it should make it much easier to make the *poly objectclass behave > like a normal objectclass, with one file being in extra, but usable > anywhere. This would require [ggee/getdir], but it should be pretty > straightforward from there. You mean getdir for finding the objects to instantiate? Maybe you can elaborate this a bit... The big problem of all *polys so far is that it's hard for them to finde the objects to instantiate. At first I had hoped that your solution of omitting the wrapper would be an easy fix, but in my tests it showed the same issue. > I am not a fan of huge routes, unless they are being dynamically > generated. It makes some really nice line drawings when you have 30 > or more instances :) Yep, it looks really cool. ;) > Is there any real difference in efficiency between one big route and > many small ones? I don't think so. I'd guess that small ones are a tiny bit less efficient because of the additional inlets, but I wouldn't care about this. Ciao -- Frank _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
