On Wednesday 22 August 2007 13:18, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
making DS and pointers work again.
The reason I ended up abandoning data structures was, as far as I could see,
the only way to get data from them was by polling them. Which I found
ridiculous.
I found it was much easier and less
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Robert Scott wrote:
So following this pattern, will 0.42 be a compatibility-breaking
redesign replacing insane messages with LISP-like lists of lists and
atoms?
In DesireData, as soon as I'm done reprogramming the GOP feature (which
has been dragging for a while and is
Hallo,
Robert Scott hat gesagt: // Robert Scott wrote:
So following this pattern, will 0.42 be a compatibility-breaking redesign
replacing insane messages with LISP-like lists of lists and atoms?
I think, with the introduction of the [list] object family, many more
LISP-like list operations
Excerpt from a PD class in 2010 (when $0 for message boxes has been
implemented meaning the same as a $0 in an object box):
STUDENT: So a $ sign in an object means a creation argument of the
abstraction instance. But I've seen some $0's around... I thought $1 was the
first creation argument.
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 06:05, Chris McCormick wrote:
My 2 Zimbabwe dollars: I agree that there is no nice reason for those
clumps, and one more inconsistency in Pd would do more good than bad in
this case. I would say making $0 do the same thing in message boxes and
abstraction arguments
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
Excerpt from a PD class in 2010 (when $0 for message boxes has been
implemented meaning the same as a $0 in an object box):
TEACHER: You have to make a clump around the message box.
Well, there's a reason why the FTS format's messagebox class was
Hi, I love fiction, so let me give a try of a scenario, :)
Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit :
Excerpt from a PD
session with the 0.5 version):
The user needs to implement $0 into a message for expressing the
implicit creation argument of the abstraction, so his instinct and lack
of practice
Hallo,
Robert Scott hat gesagt: // Robert Scott wrote:
At the same time can we also get rid of the 'only $s at the beginning of a
string get interpreted' rule?
Already done in Pd 0.40 and up.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Quoting Robert Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At the same time can we also get rid of the 'only $s at the beginning of a
string get interpreted' rule?
as frank has said, at the same time we could make sure that we are
running an actual version of Pd (or try, whether the requested feature
is
Hello IOhannes,
im still trying to compile iars for mac Intel but im getting some
errors
I ran .configure:
machine$ ./configure
checking whether qmake is available /configure: line 40: test:
too many arguments
yes
checking whether zziplib is available ...Package zziplib was not
found
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 19:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as frank has said, at the same time we could make sure that we are
running an actual version of Pd (or try, whether the requested feature
is already implemented...) :-)
I've only just updated to 0.40. So far it's just solved two of my
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
you mean because it would be difficult/impossible to program such a
feature or because so many people are already using this.$- strings in
their daily patchwork?
The latter.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Matteo Sisti Sette hat gesagt: // Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
Am I using some 0.40-only feature?
I think not, because your approach was the one used in the past, when
[send] wasn't settable yet. But anyway: I also think, you're cheating,
ecause you're
Mathieu Bouchard wrote
(and a few other people wrote something similar):
$0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in
objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent
with anything at all.
$0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-
messages
instead of a send object like:
[;detune $1(
vs
[s detune]
I wonder why, is there a significant
You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in
the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't
the same behavior in object and message boxes.
Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit :
Mathieu Bouchard wrote
(and a few other people wrote something similar):
Hi,
the problem is, that $1 (and $) has a different behaviour in objects
and in messages.
I think that was taken as reason, not to make $0 having the same
behaviour in messages, but giving it no behaviour at all and also no
alternative solution.
but maybe there is another motivation I have not
Hello,
indeed, in message boxes, if the variable after the dollar sign doesn't
match a number corresponding to the number of arguments given at it's
input, it outputs directly the variable, if the variable is a number, it
ignores the dollarsign, if the number is greater than the number of
patrice,
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing...
a dollar sign in an object will get replaced by the argument you give to
the patch on creation.
lets say you have a patch volume and it multiplies input by $1
[inlet~]
|
[*~ $1]
|
[outlet~]
then you can create that abstraction
Hallo,
Patrice Colet hat gesagt: // Patrice Colet wrote:
You know what, all along the hundreds of lines I've been reading in
the list about $0, I don't get a single consistent reason why it hasn't
the same behavior in object and message boxes.
Don't know if it's a good reason, but: In a
Frank Barknecht wrote:
reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in
messages to #
no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments!
for reasons of backwards compatibitily.
marius.
___
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in
messages to #
no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments!
for reasons of backwards compatibitily.
For reasons of backwards compatibility
instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like this.:
this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages.
just a suggestion.
m.
marius schebella wrote:
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in
messages to #
no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments!
for reasons of backwards compatibitily.
For reasons of
Hello,
Frank Barknecht a écrit :
However messages reaching a message box do not
carry such an unique identifier, as $0 is a property of the canvas,
not a property of the incoming message: There is no $0 in messages,
there's only a $0 in a canvas. An effect of this is, that there's no
$0 in
Hallo,
Patrice Colet hat gesagt: // Patrice Colet wrote:
Hello,
Frank Barknecht a écrit :
However messages reaching a message box do not
carry such an unique identifier, as $0 is a property of the canvas,
not a property of the incoming message: There is no $0 in messages,
there's only a $0
Frank Barknecht wrote:
For message boxes however one *could* define, that $0 should be
replaced by the value of $0 taken from the canvas, the message box
sits in, as soon the box is activated (by click or an incoming
message). However this would somehow change the direct relationship
Frank Barknecht a écrit :
Hallo,
It would rely on the fact,
that message boxes also are a kind of object in a canvas and don't
just represent a Pd message as objects exchange them. In the end, a
message box wouldn't be very different from a fancy, clickable
[makefilename] or [list ...] object.
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like this.:
this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages.
Though with 0.40 dollar substition was allowed in the middle of a
symbol as well, not only at the beginning, so this wouldn't work
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in
messages to #
no, I was talking about changing the sign for creation arguments!
for reasons of backwards compatibitily.
Seems I've
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
instead of @ # ? we could also use a prefix like this.:
this.$0, this.$1, this.$2 for messages.
Though with 0.40 dollar substition was allowed in the middle of a
symbol as well, not only at the
yes, seems our mails were crossing each other somewhere in the jungle of
mail delivery... :)
marius.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
reason. But as Marius' and others' suggestion of changing $ in
messages to #
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
$0 is inconsistent with $1, $2 etc strictly speaking, but you may think
of $0 as of an implicit creation argument. The name $0 has the same
scope of the names $1,$2,
yes.
Making $0 mean in a message the same it means in an object box, would
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Frank Barknecht wrote:
for messages and objects as in Max? (Personally I prefer that both
messages and object boxes use a dollarsign for simplicity, but I also
know from teaching workshops, that many newbies get confused by
this. But then, they also confuse the difference
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
then I think the only solution is to write a new object: the message
object :). we already have bang as a message and bang as a widget and we
have two numbers, so why not also have a new message object, clickable
and with all features one wants.
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a
send object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you
have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're
sending more than one) the message box wins.
cheers
Miller
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:36:33PM
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there
is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the
only way to achieve a settable send.
there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial
values together at some place, it is much nicer
True - i could never understand why this isn't the case. But i
remember that there have been related discussions on the list months
or years ago
greetings, Thomas
Am 16.08.2007 um 19:10 schrieb marius schebella:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much!
most of
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
[;detune $1(
vs
[s detune]
I wonder why, is there a significant difference?
It used to be that ; was the only one to allow a variable destination
(more so than just the $1 of an abstraction...) whereas [s] was the only
one to send messages of
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Miller Puckette wrote:
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a
send object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you
have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're
sending more than one) the message box wins.
If
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much!
most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with
messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result.
marius.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
i don't know if there is a technical difference in
To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so it's
not clear what $0 would mean in a message box. Making $0 in a
message box behave like $0 in an object box could be a quick hack,
but it could also have ramifications going forward.
.hc
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:20 PM,
actually, it isn't a mess at all, i think. i try to illustrate it with
my previous example:
[loadbang]
|
[$0]
|_
|; /
|$1-value 34 |
|$1-somevalue 127|
|$1-othervalue 57|
|$1-yoyo 1___\
though, i wouldn't be against dollarzeros in
Am 16.08.2007 um 19:32 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so
it's not clear what $0 would mean in a message box.
Sure but $0 means something different than $1 etc. in an object box
too, so i don't see the point.
Making $0 in a
Hallo,
marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ;-messages
instead of a send object like:
[;detune $1(
vs
[s detune]
I wonder why, is there a significant difference?
I cannot speak for Miller, but one difference
marius schebella wrote:
[s] was the only one to send messages of variable size
and Mathieu Bouchard wrote
If you are sending a variable number of elements then the [s] wins because
the messagebox can't do it...
It is actually possible to send a variable-sized message with a message box,
Hallo,
Matteo Sisti Sette hat gesagt: // Matteo Sisti Sette wrote:
Am I using some 0.40-only feature?
I think not, because your approach was the one used in the past, when
[send] wasn't settable yet. But anyway: I also think, you're cheating,
ecause you're actually changing the message box and
Hallo,
Miller Puckette hat gesagt: // Miller Puckette wrote:
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a
send object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you
have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're
sending more than one) the
Frank Barknecht wrote:
But anyway: I also think, you're cheating,
ecause you're actually changing the message box and thus creating many
different message boxes on the fly,
Sorry, it was not my intention to cheat.
I'll have to read the rules of the game again ;)
I just thought I'd mention
49 matches
Mail list logo
