Excellent point, don't listen to me! :) From your example, I'm assuming you're hinting at including the ability in this abstraction to switch interpolation schemes by enabling/disabling sub-patched tabread~, tabread4~, and tabread4c~ objects via inlet messages or creation arguments.
In the end, I would probably only use a tabread4c~ type object in special circumstances given tabread4~ is good enough. So whatever you decide to do I'm sure it's going to be legit (as Pd rocks). Cheers, ~Brandon On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:06 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > hmm, i am not totally convinced (but actually don't care) as this > leads to bloated objects which can just do everything and you > specify what they should do via parameters. why do we have objects > then? > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
