----- Original Message ----- > From: Cyrille Henry <[email protected]> > To: Jonathan Wilkes <[email protected]> > Cc: Roman Haefeli <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:55 PM > Subject: Re: [PD] settable receive again > > > > Le 09/06/2012 18:36, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit : >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: Cyrille Henry<[email protected]> >>> To: Jonathan Wilkes<[email protected]> >>> Cc: Roman Haefeli<[email protected]>; > "[email protected]"<[email protected]> >>> Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 7:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: [PD] settable receive again >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 08/06/2012 19:15, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit : >>> >>>>> anyway, if you really in need for a settable send and a > settable >>> receive, you >>>>> can always use prepends and route that are both settable. >>>>> see small attached abstraction. >>>> >>>> I think you are stuck for two reasons >>>> 1) [r setable_send_receive] is global. I want the parent $0 in > front of it >>> so that >>>> my abstraction symbols don't clash with other abstractions. >>> >>> i don't understand this point : just ignore the > settable_send_receive stuff >>> that is hidden inside ss and sr. >> >> What if some other abstraction somewhere uses that symbol? The >> whole point of $0 is that you don't need to worry about this. > the risk can be reduce using this symbol instead : > This_symbol_is_use_for_the_ss_and_sr_object_and_should_not_be_use_elsewhere > > if you still think it's dangerous, then think of someone using 1000-foo in > it's patch. > $0-foo is not 100% safe either!!! > > >> >>> this 2 abstractions work exactly like a real settable send and receive, > at least >>> for the local / global send. >> >> No, they don't. They have an additional feature/bug of filtering lists > that have a >> symbol as the first element. "list foo bar" comes out "foo > bar" at the other end. > yes, my sentence was an answer to your 1st point : local / global send. not > an > answer to your 2nd point. > > this patchs was a prof of concept, not a final answer. > >> >> Like I wrote, it's possible to hack around this problem. But > that's much uglier >> than, say, sending a symbol to an inlet. > > yes, i agree. > having a settable receive is one of the 1000 things that can be improve to > make > user life easier. > i just wanted to point that it's far from being a show stopper, since simple > workaround can be find.
999 if you use pd-l2ork. :) A roadblock isn't a showstopper. But if you have enough roadblocks it makes it very difficult to get where you want to go. -Jonathan > > cheers > > Cyrille > > >> >> -Jonathan >> >>> i.e. if you want a local only send/receive, just use $0-bla, like you > would have >>> done with "real" send / receive. >>> >>> that the route that filter content of different abstraction. the only > problem is >>> CPU overload, but that should really be minor. >>> >>> >>>> 2) Your example filters messages in a way that s/r doesn't. > It's >>> possible to hack >>>> around this using three extra objects. >>> yes, right. but that is a minor problem. not a show stopper. >>> >>> cheers >>> c >>> >>>> It is also possible to get the arguments of >>>> an abstraction in Pd Vanilla. With the former, I'd rather > send a >>> single message to >>>> an inlet and be done. >>>> >>>> -Jonathan >>>> >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> c >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
