On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 08:56 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> > > To: pd-list@iem.at > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ? > > > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 09:53 +0200, Jeppi Jeppi wrote: > >> Hey, > >> I wonder whether there is something similar to Max' ipoke~ (an > >> interpolating buffer~ writer) for Pd. I should need it for some > >> physical modelling and resampling stuff. Otherwise, I could implement > >> it myself. It seems only interpolated reading is available (tabread4~ > >> and similar ones), not writing. > > > > This somehow reminds of the thread about settable [receive]. > > Whether or not the user who started the settable [receive] thread really > needed a settable receive, there are situations where it's needed, like > wrapping s/r in abstractions so that I don't have to prepend a $0- which, > in 95% of cases is what I want, and using a 2nd arg for setting scope for > the other 5% of situations.
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand. Can you elaborate this? > There, not having a > settable receive leads to hacky solutions like dynamic-patching or > feeding a message-box with a semicolon, the receive-symbol, and > the message (which also requires a hack to get "list foo" to remain > "list foo" when it comes out). Both of those solutions are obscure and > way more error-prone than simply sending a symbol to an inlet. Sure, I wasn't advocating to substitute a settable receive by some dynamic patching hack. I just happened not to be able to think of a case that absolutely needs a settable receive (and am sorry for not yet understanding the one you provided above). > And the historical replies to a user wanting a settable receive of "why do > you want to do that" are misleading, because the real question was > "why do you want to do that when there's a long-standing bug-- even in > all the iemguis-- that may cause a crash by doing that?" There never was a bug in [r ], afaik. I didn't know about the fact, that adding an inlet to [r] would imply implementing a bug before it was mentioned in this thread and I always thought, that for conceptual reasons it was never implemented. And for some reason I haven't missed it in all those years of Pd patching. > Anyway, Ivica apparently has fixed the issue. That's good. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list