On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Actually a thought occured to me: If the arguments of [unpack] should
not also specify their types, why do we have these arguments at all?
[...]
So instead of [unpack 0 0 0] an [unpack 3] would create an unpack with
3 outlets for any kind of atom. But as this of course is damn
incompatible with old patches, a new class name should be used.
I have no idea why pd is like that, except that it conveniently enlarges
the box as a way to compensate for the problem that the size of the object
box isn't taking the number of in/outlets in advance. (DesireData ensures
that the box is wide enough, by looking at the number of in/outlets)
I agree that changing the behaviour of pd's unpack to be like jmax's, is
going to be damn incompatible.
A candidate for this would be an "unpack method" for [list] like [list
unpack 3].
So far I agree about [list unpack 3].
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
