Steffen wrote: > On 18/03/2007, at 11.37, Derek Holzer wrote: > >> I've had several students on both windows and OS X that had trouble >> with the [>~] object for various reasons. It can be replaced with >> [expr~ $v1 > $v2], which is what the [>~] abstraction uses. > > I saw that in the help patch for the abstraction. That help patches > says also that "you *cannot* use arguments with this version, like > [>~ 2.7]". Now i wonder if there is are Pd-technicalities that limits > to such behavior, since it's not implemented? >
it is a problem with the use of [expr~] which allows either a signal on an inlet or a float. you have to decide which one to use at creation time. in zexy's [>~] abstraction, the decision has been made towards the former case. i currently do not know of a solution for this problem... ..., since the arguments of [expr~] cannot be changed dynamically; ..., since there is no way to tell from within an abstraction whether there are arguments at all (my [EMAIL PROTECTED] fixes this); ..., since there is no way to change the abstraction's interface dynamically based on arguments (my [initbang]-patch fixes this); since zexy relies only on vanilla-pd, it cannot solve this problem in it's abstraction set. for this very reason it still provides a binary version of [>~]. but of course you can/should implement both [>~] and [>~ 0] directly with [expr~], and then you have the freedom of choice. mfga.sdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
