[PD] dealing with arguments and inlets

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
>> Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> The way I have been thinking is that the first inlet is the general
>>> inlet, and it can accept many types of messages.  Then the second  
>>> inlet
>>> lines up with the first argument, the third inlet to the second
>>> argument, etc.   I think this is pretty clean and flexible, and I  
>>> think
>>> it would be nice to have some kind of standard for this.
> ...
>> For example I can add a new "thing" to set remotely just by creating a
>> [commun /thing $0] object inside an abstraction. Nothing more and no
>> inlets are necessary to make this "/thing" read- and settable through
>> the OSC-in/outlet.
>
> I just counted (with the help of "wc") how many [commun]'s are used in
> rrad.pattseq.pd, the most complex RRADdical patch, and there are
> exactly 80. It would require 80 arguments and 80 inlets to provide the
> same functionality in a traditional way, that RRADical provides using
> one inlet and one argument.

Obviously this inlet/argument standard wouldn't work for that, and I am  
not suggesting that it should be used everywhere.  I am suggesting that  
when you use inlet/argument pairs, they should follow that standard.   
And I think inlet/argument pairs should be used whenever possible.

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

                   ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!