Matt Barber wrote:
In other words, at the moment it seems to be just as hard to add the
extra functionality to [inlet~] as it would be to make any ordinary
objectclass whose right inlet could take a signal and a bang message.
actually it is rather trivial, see attached diff.
this however is a quick hack and i don't think it should really be used.
probably a better approach would be to accept any messages in [inlet~]
and just pass them on to the objects connected.
then you could have another object that separates signals and messages.
i would call the latter [route~]ld be made for the vinlet class.
BTW, to complicate things, if one wanted abstractions to REALLY work
like objects, then if the abstraction's leftmost inlet were an
[inlet~], it would automatically sprout the right outlet for passing
messages (and this only if it were an abstraction -- you probably
wouldn't want this for subpatches)...
i don't fully understand what you mean here.
however, it seems to me that you are trying to mimick flaws in the
external-API in the abstraction-API.
it would probably be better to fix the flaws than to mimick them.
(and one could hack together an external that takes messages+signals on
any inlet; and signals only on a right-hand inlet,...)
fmgasd
IOhannes
Index: g_io.c
===================================================================
--- g_io.c (Revision 9980)
+++ g_io.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -36,8 +36,9 @@
/* if not reblocking, the next slot communicates the parent's inlet
signal from the prolog to the DSP routine: */
t_signal *x_directsignal;
+ t_resample x_updown;
- t_resample x_updown;
+ t_outlet*x_sigoutlet, *x_msgoutlet;
} t_vinlet;
static void *vinlet_new(t_symbol *s)
@@ -47,43 +48,46 @@
x->x_inlet = canvas_addinlet(x->x_canvas, &x->x_obj.ob_pd, 0);
x->x_bufsize = 0;
x->x_buf = 0;
- outlet_new(&x->x_obj, 0);
+ x->x_msgoutlet=outlet_new(&x->x_obj, 0);
+ x->x_sigoutlet=0;
return (x);
}
static void vinlet_bang(t_vinlet *x)
{
- outlet_bang(x->x_obj.ob_outlet);
+ outlet_bang(x->x_msgoutlet);
}
static void vinlet_pointer(t_vinlet *x, t_gpointer *gp)
{
- outlet_pointer(x->x_obj.ob_outlet, gp);
+ outlet_pointer(x->x_msgoutlet, gp);
}
static void vinlet_float(t_vinlet *x, t_float f)
{
- outlet_float(x->x_obj.ob_outlet, f);
+ outlet_float(x->x_msgoutlet, f);
}
static void vinlet_symbol(t_vinlet *x, t_symbol *s)
{
- outlet_symbol(x->x_obj.ob_outlet, s);
+ outlet_symbol(x->x_msgoutlet, s);
}
static void vinlet_list(t_vinlet *x, t_symbol *s, int argc, t_atom *argv)
{
- outlet_list(x->x_obj.ob_outlet, s, argc, argv);
+ outlet_list(x->x_msgoutlet, s, argc, argv);
}
static void vinlet_anything(t_vinlet *x, t_symbol *s, int argc, t_atom *argv)
{
- outlet_anything(x->x_obj.ob_outlet, s, argc, argv);
+ outlet_anything(x->x_msgoutlet, s, argc, argv);
}
static void vinlet_free(t_vinlet *x)
{
canvas_rminlet(x->x_canvas, x->x_inlet);
+ if(x->x_sigoutlet)outlet_free(x->x_sigoutlet);
+ if(x->x_msgoutlet)outlet_free(x->x_msgoutlet);
resample_free(&x->x_updown);
}
@@ -247,17 +251,24 @@
static void *vinlet_newsig(t_symbol *s)
{
+ int onlysignal=0;
t_vinlet *x = (t_vinlet *)pd_new(vinlet_class);
x->x_canvas = canvas_getcurrent();
- x->x_inlet = canvas_addinlet(x->x_canvas, &x->x_obj.ob_pd, &s_signal);
+ x->x_sigoutlet=outlet_new(&x->x_obj, &s_signal);
+ if(onlysignal) {
+ x->x_inlet = canvas_addinlet(x->x_canvas, &x->x_obj.ob_pd, &s_signal);
+ x->x_msgoutlet=0;
+ } else {
+ x->x_inlet = canvas_addinlet(x->x_canvas, &x->x_obj.ob_pd, 0);
+ x->x_msgoutlet=outlet_new(&x->x_obj, 0);
+ }
x->x_endbuf = x->x_buf = (t_float *)getbytes(0);
x->x_bufsize = 0;
x->x_directsignal = 0;
- outlet_new(&x->x_obj, &s_signal);
-
+
resample_init(&x->x_updown);
- /* this should be though over:
+ /* this should be thought over:
* it might prove hard to provide consistency between labeled up- &
downsampling methods
* maybe indeces would be better...
*
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
