Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 21:01 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> is it possible -in the context of writing a pd external class- to >> invisibly patch some other object and attach to it/bind it? >> >> I'll try to explain better with an example: >> if I were writing an external that is somewhat an interface to arrays >> (read/write), I have some design choices: >> >> 1) copy/paste the code of array (g_array.c) (or eventually only copy >> [tabread]/[tabwrite]) >> pros: resulting external is tight & tidy >> cons: code duplication, possible breakage in future releases >> >> 2) provide appropriate inlets and outlets, and require the user to patch >> the external among [tabread]/[tabwrite] objects >> pros: modular. is independent from the array implementation. >> cons: tricky to use, the user can patch it incorrectly and won't work. >> >> 3) is possible to patch the required objects without phisically put them >> in the canvas [?] >> pros: all pros mentioned in 1) and 2) >> cons: [?] >> >> obviously, 1) and 2) are ugly under some point of view; what I am >> interested in is 3), hence asking here if possible, and directions on >> how to proceed. >> > > i cannot give any technical help, but from a strict pd _user_ point of > view, i like the 2) approach the most, simply because it is so easy to > turn what you want into an abstraction. would there be a reason not to > do so? >
there are things you can't do with abstractions (have variable number of iolets, accepting variable-type arguments, just to name some) -- Federico Ferri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
