[PD] really annoying question about tildes~

[Matt Barber]

Not to be a stinker,

These are very easy to implement as abstractions in Pd vanilla even
without expr~, yes-no?


[>~] :


[inlet~]  [inlet]
 |         /
[-~ $1]
 |
[max~ 0]
 | \
[/~]
 |
[outlet~]



[<~] :


[inlet~]  [inlet]
 |         /
[-~ $1]
 |
[min~ 0]
 | \
[/~]
 |
[outlet~]



[==~] :


            [inlet~]  [inlet]
             |         /
             [-~ $1]
              | \
[sig~ 1]  [/~ ]
 \__       _/
       [-~]
        |
       [outlet~]


or :


[inlet~]  [inlet]
 |         /
[-~ $1]
 | \
[/~]
 |
[*~ -1]
 |
[+~ 1]
 |
[outlet~]

Not that this helps at all with the special character problem, and
they're bound to be less efficient.  One cool thing, though, is the
ability to turn both inlets into signal inlets (but ditching the $1).

Matt




> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:18:08 +0900
> From: "hard off" <hard.off at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PD] really annoying question about tildes~
> To: "IOhannes m zmoelnig" <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> Cc: pd-list at iem.at
> Message-ID:
>        <161320dd0807180218p74f5d585j62f2f9aeffb837c9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> yeah totally.
>
> it seems nonsensical that pd has > and < for control signals, but not for
> audiorate signals.
>
> and as andy obiwan mentioned before [pow~] would also be very useful.
>
>
> as far as i can guess, all of these objects are very simple code-wise.