On 12 Oct 2009, at 21:41, Luke Iannini wrote:
2009/10/12 zmoel...@iem.at:
Quoting Jamie Bullock ja...@postlude.co.uk:
but then I can't easily script 'disconnect'.
why not?
Yo, I had a similar complete unawareness of the [disconnect( message
long ago when I was designing a bunch of
On 9 Oct 2009, at 16:03, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
Jamie Bullock wrote:
Hi all,
Has anyone implemented this with externals, or a Pd dynamic
patching hack?
s~/r~ are one-to-many settable on the receive side.
throw~/catch~ are many-to-one settable on the send side.
What about a
Quoting Jamie Bullock ja...@postlude.co.uk:
but then I can't easily script 'disconnect'.
why not?
fgasdr
IOhannes
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
binrPdr6GGmzM.bin
Description: Öffentlicher
2009/10/12 zmoel...@iem.at:
Quoting Jamie Bullock ja...@postlude.co.uk:
but then I can't easily script 'disconnect'.
why not?
Yo, I had a similar complete unawareness of the [disconnect( message
long ago when I was designing a bunch of dynamic audio routing stuff
that caused me to architect
Hi all,
Has anyone implemented this with externals, or a Pd dynamic patching
hack?
s~/r~ are one-to-many settable on the receive side.
throw~/catch~ are many-to-one settable on the send side.
What about a sendbus~/receivebus~ many-to-many settable on both sides?
Jamie
--
Jamie Bullock wrote:
Hi all,
Has anyone implemented this with externals, or a Pd dynamic patching hack?
s~/r~ are one-to-many settable on the receive side.
throw~/catch~ are many-to-one settable on the send side.
What about a sendbus~/receivebus~ many-to-many settable on both sides?
