Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > that is: if your create a [send] object without(!) a send-name, it will > have a second inlet which can be used to set the send-name.
Which reminds me: Why was it made so that only sends without argument get the second inlet? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to have every send have a second inlet to set the receiver. It's easy to achieve with an abstraction (as attached) but that seems unnecessary work to me. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
ssend-help.pd
Description: application/puredata
ssend.pd
Description: application/puredata
_______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
