I should clarify this by adding that the side-effect won't happen if you
edit an abstraction's inlets/outlets without any objects that include
that abstraction being open at the time. Apparently, the change causes a
re-instantiation of the abstraction in the parent, breaking the
inlet/outlet connections.
On 6/19/12 1:22 PM, Phil Stone wrote:
One potentially nasty drawback to this practice (I found) was that if
you change the pseudo-argument in any way, you lose whatever
connections were made to that inlet or outlet in the outer patch. I
agree with you that comments are a pain in the neck, but at least they
don't exhibit this often hard-to-find side effect.
Phil
www.pkstonemusic.com
On 6/19/12 12:41 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
quick question: is it legal to (ab)use creation parameters to inlets
and outlets for documentation, or does that lead to unwanted side
effects?
i'd like to do something like this:
[inlet Set level in dB]
[inlet Set Fader position in mm]
[outlet Current level in dB]
[outlet Current Fader position in mm]
[outlet~ Gain coefficient]
of course i could use comments, but i don't like the way they don't
line-wrap in a controlled way, plus their association to what they
are annotating is a bit weak for my taste...
best,
jörn
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
